I'm Sandy! I use they/them (ENG) or elle (ESP) pronouns. Please add me onto your email chains! My email is: boltonbarrientosdebate@gmail.com

2024 will be my twelfth year in the MNUDL :O

Talk to me about Spanish Debate!!!!!!!

• 1st year as the Spanish debate coach for Minneapolis South
• 4th year as the novice policy debate coach for Minneapolis South
• Debated for Roosevelt H.S. for 4 years
• Debated for Keewaydin M.S. for 3 years

Tag team is fine but I would love it if you high fived your partner when you do it. I won't enforce this preference in any way other than telling you at the beginning of the debate and it won’t have any speaker point consequences. I just think it's a great way to navigate cross-ex with your partner in a way that's balanced, equitable, and fun!

I highly value story-telling and big picture analysis in your speeches. I love a 1AC that's narrative (i.e. internal link chain) is easy to understand. I love a 2AR overview that tells me in enough detail the story of the AFF and why its impacts matter in the debate. I love a K 2NR that flips the script of the 1AC to tell me why the links actually do matter in the greater context of liberation and structural violence.

What does this mean for you practically?

• When listening to the impact debate (on any flow-- framework, T, theory, kritikal or policy strategies), I'm looking for you to strategically and persuasively tell me why the impact is the most important thing in the round. Exaggerate! Tell me it's "try or die" for the AFF/NEG! Minimize your opponents' impact any chance you get! Abandon phrases like "might happen" or "could solve" and replace it with "will happen" and "absolutely solves". Don't be afraid to use impact calculus. Of course, these framing tools require warrants just like any other argument, but they really make a difference in if I will confidently vote for you or not.

• Speaking of warrants for your impacts, you need coherent internal link chains. Telling me "vote AFF to avoid nuclear war" in your rebuttals isn't enough. It's important to answer questions like: War with who? When? And of course, what's the connection to the AFF's solvency? Telling me the "AFF makes capitalism worse" isn't enough; What part of capitalism? Over-consumption? Labor exploitation? Extractive logic? Wealth hoarding?

• Advocacy statements and solvency should be clearly and consistently explained and extended for both AFF and NEG (if applicable). If you're AFF, that's obviously the whole thing, but just please do make sure to consistently compare the efficacy of the AFF to any alternative NEG advocacies.

(I know alternatives are tricky to explain and defend, and I'm pretty sympathetic to K debaters as a former K debater myself. I do think the Alternative is a pretty cool part of the debate. I'm really interested in radical movement building and how communities organize to make change, if that's a helpful frame to consider when thinking about how you would explain your alternative to me. Feel free to email me with questions!)

• Compare your arguments with your opponents -- clash is king!
• Communicate effectively -- if you're so fast you're unintelligible, or if your Kritik blocks are so dense nobody in the round understands what's going on, that is on you.
• Evidence is really important, but I have a pretty expansive understanding of evidence: storytelling, anecdotes, poetry, dance, journals, zines, prose, scientific journals, history, accounts, common sense thinking, etc. are all forms of evidence that can generate knowledge and prove your arguments.

• For the sake of being honest about my implicit biases, I will admit this: I do not have the brain for theory debates. I find things like aspec, condo, intrinsic perms bad, etc. really challenging to flow and follow and as a result, I don't typically include them on my ballots. Sometimes theory happens because it must or because it's Rosebowl, and I get it. But if you're wondering if you should include your A-Z spec blocks in front of me, maybe wait for a different judge lol.

• I was a K debater in high school. I'm definitely still really interested in Kritikal literature as a person involved in community organizing and who is an Indigenous Studies major. If you're curious about Kritiks, want feedback on strategies, or just to talk through ideas -- please talk to me! I can definitely provide more specific comments and ideas on: abolition, settler colonialism and coloniality, indigenous and Chicanx feminisms, and queer theory. This is not to say I'll vote for Kritiks all the time or that I won't get your policy strategy. Run whatever you want.

• Please define your acronyms before you use them!

• As opposed to Abbie "Big A" Amundsen (<3), I am a big fan of overviews!

Have fun! Be nice! Stay organized! That's all it takes.

I was a Policy Debate Coach for the Margarita Muñiz Academy (MA) — both English and Spanish teams — I am currently working for the Boston Debate League. I also have debating experience as a debate en español high school debater.

My approach to judging policy debate is primarily objective. I will strive to remain neutral and impartial throughout the debate, and will base my decision solely on the merits of the arguments presented. I do not have any predetermined biases or predispositions towards any particular argument or position.

I expect both teams to engage in constructive and respectful debate. Each team should be prepared to support their claims with strong evidence and be able to respond to the other team's arguments in a thoughtful and respectful manner. I expect all participants to adhere to the established time limits and to speak clearly and coherently. I value effective communication and organization in a policy debate. Teams that are able to clearly and effectively articulate their arguments and support them with strong evidence will be more likely to earn my support.

In evaluating the arguments presented, I will consider a variety of factors, including the quality and relevance of the evidence, the strength of the logical reasoning used, and the persuasiveness of the overall argument. I will also consider the ability of each team to effectively address and refute the other team's arguments.

When evaluating theory arguments, I will assess the validity of the argument, the interpretation of the rules or norms in question, and the potential impact of the violation. I will also consider the extent to which the violation affects the fairness of the debate. If the argument is well-supported and the violation is significant, I will vote on the theory argument. However, I will also consider whether the theory argument is strategic or a tactic to gain an advantage in the debate.

When evaluating kritikal affirmative cases, I will assess the strength of the arguments presented, the coherence of the framework, and the evidence presented. I will also consider whether the affirmative case offers a viable alternative or solution to the problems identified in the critique. I expect kritikal affirmative teams to be able to effectively defend their framework and explain how it relates to the debate topic. I will evaluate the debate based on whether the affirmative team has effectively proven their case, rather than on whether I agree with their perspective or ideology.

Finally, I believe that policy debate is a valuable opportunity for students to develop critical thinking and public speaking skills. I am committed to providing constructive feedback to each team following the debate, in order to help them improve their skills and continue to grow as debaters.