Jonah Rosenberg Paradigm

Last changed 18 September 2021 11:44 AM EDT

I've been debating for 2 years and I'm a junior at Allderdice HS in Pittsburgh PA. I am pretty active on the local circuit but have also done some competitions on the national circuit as well.

email for chains:


tech>truth for substance, but truth>tech for theory and Ks and other stuff. Weighing is important and I like fun weighing too. Second rebuttal should frontline about half the time and then respond to opps. ALSO, This should really go without saying but any sort of language that is misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. will get you an instant L20 and I will report you to the people running the tournament.


I like it. It's useful for my flows. If you don't do it I'll probably lose a bunch of what you say because I'll spend longer than I should have to going down my flow (which is usually pretty extensive when I judge) looking for what you're responding to.


This is a fun time to get good speaks if I like what you do. Obviously I don't vote on it but I do feel I value it more than other judges. If your opp says something stupid, you should bring it up in a speech and make fun of them for it. Just kidding, don't do that, but cross is important. GCX can be skipped but sometimes it's fun to see who can get the most aggressive on a screen.


First rebuttal should just go straight down the case and then weigh if you want. Also if you have really good framework that goes really counter to what your opps have, bring that up. Me and my partner like framework and so I judge good framework very generously. People now really hate card dumping, and while I don't think it's very fun, I acknowledge it can sometimes be effective, so I'm not going to doc you anything because of it. I already said this, but second rebuttal should be about 50/50 on your case and then your opps.


This is definitely the hardest speech of the round and also a speech I never give. First summary should probably extend turns, and then frontline what they're going for. Second summary can never bring up new evidence I'll drop it instantly. Second summary does pretty much the same as the first in my opinion, but I think it's fun when summary speeches are creative.


Definitely slow down during FF as you're done bringing in new things and usually reiterating what you've liked throughout the round. Usually at this point I already have a winner, but in close rounds it can definitely be a real deciding factor in the winner.


I will always disclose after the round as long as the competition lets me. I think debate is educational before everything else and if I can't give you my feedback, then what's really the point?


Spreading I feel is one of those things that both sides should agree to pre round. I can flow as fast as it gets, but I understand not everyone can. If you plan on spreading, ask everyone before the round and make sure I know that you asked and then we'll do it. If you don't ask I'll probably drop speaks a lot. I will also get to theory later and why I don't like it, but this is one of the few exceptions. If you said pre round that you can't flow spreading, run some theory against it and make it a voting issue and I'll vote on it.


Disclosing is stupid. Debate is educational and the best way to educate yourself is to not know everything your opp is going to say before they say it. If you're not thinking on your feet, what's the point? If you run disclosure theory, you're wasting your time.


Speaks are stupid, but also fun. I am pretty generous. If you get below 27ish you probs did something wrong. I think analogies are pretty cool and if you make good ones in like summary or something I'll send you some love in the speaks. I also think really weird link chains are fun too. If you have contentions with like nuclear war impacts or something, run them. You'll make everyone laugh and that's fun.


Not only do I not mind, I highly encourage it. It holds me accountable for my decision and can teach me more as a new judge. I hate it when judges give very little RFD and I also hate typing it up so I'd prefer to give it all right there post round so just fire away all your questions there.




There's two kind of Ks, the ones you say just because you want to win and the ones you actually agree with. I'll vote on the latter and I can tell which is which. (Unless you're a really good liar, then go for it.)

All other progressive args

Same as above except for a few exceptions.

1. I said it above, but spreading theory is fine.

2. The K that won TOC 2021 was pretty cool and very necessary. If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch this video, these people are pretty cool.


Please have them on for online tournaments. There's no option to put a black screen over your face at in person tournaments so why turn them off? I like to see who I'm judging. With that said though, dress as casually as you want, idrc.

Other things

I personally love all things debate. I spend way too much time watching rounds of people I admire doing what they're best at and I believe we all have things to learn from each other. Please please have fun with your rounds. We stress too much about tournaments but don't realize how trivial they truly they are. Follow me on insta @jonahrosenberg_

Have fun guys

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
The 2nd Annual Quarantine Classic HS 2021-07-22 PF R3 Pu Tai Senior LW Montgomery Blair WC Neg
The 2nd Annual Quarantine Classic MS 2021-07-22 PF R2 Pu Tai DS Holy Lake Mary ZK Neg