Giarrano,+Leonard

(Both my son and I are on the wiki, and as you may've noticed, we have the same name. That said, if you've got "Giarrano, Leonard" for your judge at Yale, Harvard, or CFL Nats, my son'll be the one in the judge pool. He'd be "Giarrano IV, Leonard" right beneath me in the list.)

Put shortly: I am not a past debater. I am a parent. I am a lay judge.

I can deal with speeds that are faster than conversational, but I get lost at faster speeds. Crystallizing will always help clear the air, but the impact of spreading on the quality of my flow is probably irreversible.

The obvious, basic jargon is okay (e.g. extend, turn, V, VC, etc.), but I would strongly recommend against running theory, Ks, CPs, and the like since I'm not familiar with their jargon and structures and, honestly, will have trouble buying them over a reasonable traditional case.

I really need a solid Value, Value-Criterion, and contentions set-up from your case to evaluate the round because I do like more traditional rounds that focus on the VC debate and then tie-in the contentions and turns accordingly.

Adapt accordingly, and good luck!