Brown,+Terrick

Currently, I coach debate and public address at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, TX. This is my tenth year of coaching: four at the middle school level and five at the high school level.

My experience in debate started at the collegiate level. I competed in Parliamentary Debate for four years and attended several Parli camps during my tenure. “True Parli” is a unique debate activity that intertwines facets of public forum, LD and policy. The resolutions breed the type of cases (fact, policy, or value) that should be constructed and debated. As a result of my debating experience, I am very versatile as a coach and judge.

In short, I prefer the following things:
 * Framework**—establish parameters to stakeout ground to prove and defend in the round. Oftentimes, debaters neglect this crucial step and unfortunately spread themselves too thin and ultimately expose areas of weakness that can be easily attacked.
 * Clash**—make very smart, offensive responses to arguments down the flow with clear signposting.
 * Speed**—In LD and PF, I am not okay with spreading. On a scale from 1-10, I would set the speed limit to 7.
 * Evaluating the round**—I prefer to rely on the debater to tell me how to evaluate the round. That is why voters are so important. In rebuttal speeches, articulate clear voters and make sure they are separated from the flow. However, if voters aren’t given, I would be forced to evaluate the round from my vantage point.
 * Argumentation—**I generally don’t like to hear CX arguments (plan, counterplan, kritiks) in LD. However, if the resolution lends itself to these kinds of arguments, I am amenable to them. With that being said, I have only seen (lately) a few resolutions conducive for these kinds of arguments.