Olivia Chilkoti Paradigm

Last changed 11/12 1:14A CDT
  1. Introduction: I competed for Durham Academy for five years, the last three of which were in LD. I competed on the National Circuit (Holy Cross, Yale, GMU, Emory, Harvard etc.) as well as the North Carolina circuit. As such I’m familiar with progressive and traditional argumentation. I attended GDS and most of my attitudes towards debate stem from there. I’m a first year out at UChicago (where I do not debate). For email chains use ochilkoti@uchicago.edu.
  2. In Round Etiquette: I expect that you are polite at all times. Passion is encouraged but personal attacks will result in me tanking your speaks. If you are debating someone who is clearly less experienced than you, be kind. Debate is an educational activity and being unfair/rude/abusive significantly reduces its educational potential for all parties involved. Do not be offensive. I will not vote for discriminatory or offensive positions.
  3. Speed: I prefer to flow what I hear. If you’re flashing/emailing docs I still want to receive it, but I will try to evaluate based on the flow. Start at a conversational speed and increase from there. Slow down for tags, cites, theory, and super dense phil. If you do not slow down or speak more clearly after the first two times I ask, I will start to dock your speaks.
  4. Run whatever you want: Just because I did or didn’t run an argument doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it if it’s executed and explained well. I share that information merely to let you know what I am most familiar with.
  5. Argumentation Styles: I have zero tolerance for tricks — I think they’re unfair and rob debate of its educational value. Plans/CPs/Disads are fine. I only ever ran theory as a way to check abuse in round. As a result that is the limit of my confident ability to evaluate theory, and I’d rather not judge rounds that collapse to theory/high theory. FAIRNESS IS NOT A VOTER IT IS AN INTERNAL LINK TO EDUCATION. I’m familiar with critical positions but wasn’t a K debater so take that as you will. Because I see K’s as an indictment of problematic practices/mindsets, I will evaluate it before theory, which I conceive of as rules/norms for the debate space. You’re probably going to have a hard time convincing me to vote for a non-topical case. I have little to no experience with performative debate, but I think it’s absolutely fascinating so if it's what you do best, go for it. My favorite cases are framework heavy philosophy cases; that being said my in-depth philosophy knowledge is uneven/esoteric so as always please explain things clearly.
  6. Judge intervention: It is your job to make my decision clear for me. I will not substitute my knowledge of the topic of any given author/lit to supplement unclear argumentation, and you should not assume what authors I am familiar with. I will however intervene if there is blatant abuse. I will also call for cards if I feel that’s necessary.
  7. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS: I want to see comparison of whatever framing is going on on both sides, impact calculus that links back to framing, and EXPLICIT VOTERS IN THE 2NR/2AR. (You should probably number them as well)

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD Sextos Strake Jesuit College Prep AM Newark Science OS Neg Neg on a 3-0
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Elkins KP Trinity PH Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R7 Lakeville South MH Edina MK Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/17/2018 VLD R4 Brophy CP CT Quarry Lane ZD Aff