Intro to Technical Debate (Substance Debates)

By: Shaurya Kasi

What is technical debate and how does it differ from parent/traditional/lay debate?

A traditional debate is often slow-paced with both sides providing a logical train of argumentation with cases often consisting of impacts such as economic loss, an increase in poverty, or the intensification of climate change. On the other hand, technical debate focuses more on the nuances of arguments and rewards debaters who repeat the same reasoning throughout the round and have larger impacts such as extinction, even if they may seem less logical to the average person.

Speakers in a technical round are more likely to speak very fast, a term that is known as “spreading” and usually don’t speak in fully grammatical sentences. For example, a speaker may say “econ bad now cause mass unemployment”. In contrast, a speaker in a more traditional debate may say something along the lines of “the economy is doing bad right now, and that causes many people to lose their jobs”.

There are three important facets that debate follows: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos is the spirit of the argument, while Pathos is mostly the way in which it is presented. A traditional judge will value these two much more than a technical judge. Although both types of these judges will value Logos, or the actual information presented, a true technical judge will only evaluate the merits of the argument and not other factors like how much a debater stutters or how much their argument truly makes sense outside the context of debate.

How are technical cases structured?

A technical case consists of multiple arguments, which are called contentions. Each contention has four major parts to it, the uniqueness, the link, the internal link, and the impact.

Uniqueness: Like the name indicates, the uniqueness is what makes the argument unique to your side. For example, the negative, the side that defends the status quo (the current world) may make a claim like “The economy is good right now and projected to stay that way”. On the other hand, the affirmative, that is trying to claim that the world is bad right now and we need to fix it may say something like “Our current dependence on AI for the economy will cause a crash next year”. 

Both sides can utilize different methods to make their uniqueness seem more important than just “economy good now”. One way that a team can use it is by saying that there is some sort of “brink” or that the status quo is good, but shaky. A brink argument might say something like “the economy is good, but any changes in international relations scares off investors”. This type of argument is very strategic, since a piece of uniqueness that is too strong could allow the opponents to refute the argument, in this case by saying that “if the economy is so strong, a small change won’t really affect the sector”.

Link: In PF, a link is what connects the uniqueness to the affirmation/negation of the topic. If we continue the economic argument from before and apply it to a resolution, say “Resolved: The People’s Republic of China should substantially reduce its international extraction of natural resources,” an example of a link could be “China reducing its extraction of resources destroys the economy because they don’t have access to raw materials which is necessary for their industries”.

In addition to a normal link, many technically proficient teams use a strategy where they use something called an “independent link” in order to dodge major responses. For example, a team could say “Independently, the reduction of resources makes companies angry and that causes a coup, ousting Xi Jinping and that crashes the economy".

Internal Link: The internal link is the connection between a team’s link and their impact. This is used to show how affirming/negating the topic directly leads to the impact that a team is claiming will happen. An example of this could be “economic loss leads to a civil war because people get desperate for food”.

Impact: The impact in a technical case is used to show why voting for your side matters, i.e. the affirmative side might claim that extinction is inevitable in the status quo and that the only way to fix it is through affirming. On the other hand, the negative may claim that we are going to be fine, but the effects of affirming causes extinction in some way, for example “Chinese civil war escalates and causes Xi to use nukes to keep power and a nuclear war causes extinction through famine”.

How are technical rounds won?

There are two kinds of arguments in a technical round, offensive arguments and defensive arguments. 

An offensive argument is what wins you the round, for example, if you win your contention, that would be an offensive argument since you are saying that the other side causes a large impact. 

Another form of an offensive argument is a turn, which is a response that you read against your opponents’ arguments. There are two major types of turns: link turns and impact turns.

Link Turn: A link turn basically says that when the aff/neg happens, the opposite of what they say will occur. For example, you could say something like “They say that a reduction of resources makes companies angry, but we can turn this to our side because a reduction of resources makes companies happy because they like the environment”. Of course this example doesn’t make much sense, but if the opponents concede this, a technical judge would evaluate it like you are winning their argument.

Impact Turn: An impact turn is when you agree that their link chain happens but argue that their impact is good. An example of this would be saying “We will agree that a Chinese civil war happens, but that is good because a civil war means the Xi can’t invade Taiwan which he is going to do soon, and that stops nuclear war and extinction”. Unlike a link turn, impact turns are usually only evaluated by technical judges since most traditional judges will not vote off you saying that any form of death is good because it saves more lives overall.

The second type of argument is a defensive argument. These are made as direct responses to their case, mostly responding to their uniqueness, link, and impact. 

Non-Unique: Like the name says, a non-unique is basically saying that their uniqueness is the same in either world. For example, if the opposition has a contention saying that the economy is strong now, but will collapse after you affirm, a non-unique would say “That is wrong, we are going to go into a recession in the next few months so it doesn’t matter whether you affirm or negate”. This is considered a piece of defense because you can’t win the round by simply disproving their arguments, and you would still need to win a piece of offense to win the round.

De-Link: A de-link is a defensive link level response to an argument that the opposing team read. An example of a de-link could be saying that “They are wrong, China does not depend on minerals for its economy so reducing mining will not cause a recession”. A de-link is the most important piece of defense that you can go for because if the opposing team concedes it, you can say that it is “terminal defense” and that means that they have no impact from their argument since affirming/negating doesn’t lead to the impact that they claim will occur.

To win the round, you need to extend your offensive and defensive arguments in both the summary and the final focus. A good extension includes restating your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact in a shortened form.

Once you do your extensions, you will need to weigh your offensive arguments against theirs in order to tell the judge why your arguments matter more than theirs.

There are a few different weighing mechanisms that are common in technical PF today (Note: I will not be talking about basic weighing mechanisms that most lay debaters know, refer to the Intro to Lay Guide for that):

Try-or-Die: This is essentially a probability claim that is made by the aff saying that extinction is guaranteed in the status quo (present day) and that any chance that the aff solves is a reason to vote for them. This is an important piece of weighing that must be responded to by the negative side since it also works as a non-unique to any extinction impact they read since it means that everyone dies in either world but only the aff has a chance of saving anything.

Strength of Link: This argument can be read on both sides, and it says that “our argument has no responses against it which means that they concede to our argument fully, giving us a 100% probability”. Be aware that any decently proficient technical team will probably not concede your argument fully, and even if they do, strength of link is not very strong on its own since it can be logically responded to by just saying “If I had admitted your response in my case, I’d have 100% SOL, showing that it depends on which speech the response was in which is arbitrary and illogical” (Thanks Mac Hays, check out his channel for more in-depth learning here).

Link-In: A link-in is an argument that says that one side's arguments make the other side’s arguments worse. It is pretty simple but an example would be “Our argument links in because Xi getting ousted means that we can’t solve climate change since other Chinese leaders don’t care about it”.

How do you identify a technical judge, and what should you do if you get them?

Most technical judges will have a pre-written paradigm on Tabroom which you can view to see their specific preferences, but most of them will have something along the lines of “tech>truth” or “tabula rasa”. You can also identify a technical judge based on their introduction of themselves, as most of them will probably mention how long they debated/coached and what type of arguments they like to hear.

There are many different types of “technical” judges in Public Forum debate, but most of them fall into a few categories: previous Public Forum debaters, judges who did other forms of debate such as Policy and Lincoln-Douglas, and coaches. Let's look at each type specifically:

Ex-PF Debaters: These judges will have a few years of high school PF experience and unless they say otherwise, they will probably be flowing the round and will feel compelled to vote off arguments with large impacts, such as extinction. In front of these judges, comparative weighing is especially important, so make sure to talk not only about why your arguments are good but why it is better than theirs.

Ex-LD/Policy Debaters: These judges are quite similar to the ex-PF debaters except for the fact that they might not know some PF only terms, so make sure to explain what terms like “Try-or-Die” means if you get a judge like them.

Coaches: This category has the most diverse kind of judges, so you cannot simply adapt to every single coach the same way. There are three types of coaches that all have to be treated very differently. A very experienced coach may have debated at some point in the early 2000’s, 90’s, or even 80’s, and for these judges, it is very important to see their paradigm to see what kind of arguments they are willing to evaluate. For example, some of them may want you to extend your case in the 2nd Rebuttal, and if you want to win in front of them, you will have to do that. A newbie coach might be a teacher at a school who just serves as an advisor for a club. These judges should be treated as a traditional judge and you should explain things as you would to your parents or grandparents. The third type is a college student who has prior debate experience, in which case you should treat them like an Ex-PFer/LDer/Policy Debate based on what they did.

IF THE JUDGE WAS NOT MENTIONED ABOVE, THEY ARE MOST LIKELY A TRADITIONAL JUDGE AND YOU SHOULD TREAT THEM AS SUCH!

What are some important things to prepare?

Like any other type of debate, you will need an affirmative and a negative case, preferably with a short pre-written extension for every single contention so you don’t have to spend valuable prep-time in round to write out your extension. Also consider pre-writing some common points of weighing that you might have for each contention so you can really focus on defending your case and doing some specific comparisons in round.

You should also look into writing a blockfile, or a set of pre-written arguments against common contentions on both sides of the topic. A good block includes pre-written cards (pieces of evidence) that give you turns, non-uniques, and de-links so you respond to all major parts of your opponents’ arguments. 

Finally, make sure to practice spreading (speaking fast) with your case, and remember, your clarity matters more than the speed itself because if a judge cannot understand what you are saying, chances are, they won’t flow it either and you will have a hard time winning if the judge can’t understand any of your arguments.

Resources to get started:

Opencaselist.com: Sign in with your Tabroom account to look at other teams’ arguments and you can take inspiration to write your own while also taking some of their blocks to add to your blockfile. Watch this video if you need help with using it.

How to write a good case: 

1. How to cut cards to make a technical case: How to Write a Debate Case for LD and PF

2. This video reviews some common types of cases being read in PF right now (Its very long, you don’t have to watch all of it): Blake Review Part 1

Some good rounds to watch:

1. Good round to start with since all debaters are very clear, and you can understand what they are trying to say very easily: 2024 Glenbrooks Finals | Strake Jesuit SZ (Neg 1st) vs. Blake CK (Aff 2nd) | Tech PF Debate 

2. Another great round to start with: King Round Robin 2025 | Round 4 | Seven Lakes EM vs Blake CK | Public Forum Debate 

3. This round is a good intro into how to frontline efficiently (also on the slow end of technical debates so you can start here easily): 2025 Valley Quarters | Strake SM (AFF 2nd) vs. Theodore Roosevelt MM (Neg 1st) | Flay PF Debate

4. This round is much faster, but I recommend watching it to improve crossfire skills: Strake SZ vs Montgomery Blair LT Bronx Octofinals 2024

5. Watch this round to improve case defense and weighing skills: Irvine Palatine Independent IB vs Harker LL Barkley Forum Round 3 2025

Example of a negative contention for the topic: Resolved: The People’s Republic of China should substantially reduce its international extraction of natural resources: 1NC - Econ

When looking through the contention, try to spot the different parts (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact), and also look for the independent link that would be catastrophic if it was missed.