Lesson 3-1: How to weigh

Beating good teams | When to weigh
How to structure weighing

Beating good teams

Matt. There are too many criteria and metrics in a debate. Also, sometimes I can’t think of refutation because an argument is very strong.

Once you become good at building and refuting arguments, you’ll begin to realize those skills are not enough to beat other good teams. The reality is, other good debaters will also make convincing arguments. They will mechanize as well as you and also refute your case. In these instances, how do you beat these other good teams?

Remember in Lesson 2-2, we discussed undermining truthfulness and undermining importance. Often, both teams sound smart and somewhat truthful. Therefore, it is your responsibility to switch your focus to why your argument is important. The action of showing why one mechanism/impact is more important than another is called weighing. The best weighing is accepting your opponents’ best case mechanism/impact and still showing why your team is coming ahead.

How to weigh:

Identify what you are weighing, clearly. Two sets of impacts or mechanisms.
Identify the criteria/metric you wish to compare the two impacts/mechs under.
Identify the problem which your opponent fails to resolve (ie. how they are unsuccessful in fulfilling the metric, why they are lacking)
Analyze why you are relatively more successful in fulfilling the metric.

Practical weighing metrics:

There are dozens of ways to compare impacts. There are two simple ones I always refer to. These will help you in most debates.

The number of people affected (scale) – “Our impact is more important because we affect more people”

The depth of impact and the margin of change in impact (gravity, vulnerability) – “Our impact is more important because our group is relatively more [vulnerable/hurt/helped]”

But don’t only take it from me. Here is a WUDC finalist’s list of weighing metrics:

When to weigh:

There are only three types of common disagreements between sides in a debate: disagreements between mechanisms, impacts, and metrics (what is most important in a debate). As such, there are three most common types of weighing: weighing between mechanisms, between impacts, and between metrics.

Weighing is different from the other skills in this course like building an argument or refutation. Building an argument and refutation are almost universally applicable. Weighing is very contextual. Sometimes you don’t need to weigh because teams agree on what is important, or they concede a mechanism is likely to lead to an impact.

As such, before even learning weighing, you need to develop an appreciation for when to use weighing.

Weighing between metrics: if teams in the round disagree on a metrics

For example: motion is THW, as the US government, would nationalize Amazon.
If you’ve ever debated a motion like this before, you will realize teams can actually prove anything and everything. Maybe it’s a good idea because the US government can maintain data privacy (lol), maybe it’s bad because it will make Amazon less efficient, maybe it’s great because Amazon employees will have better working conditions. There are too many different impacts in this round. In rounds like these, weighing between metrics is crucial. If you can show your actor (for example, Amazon employees) are more important than anyone else, you will do well in this round.

Weighing between impact: if teams in the round agree on a metric, but disagree on the best impact to fulfill that metric

For example: motion is THW ban zoos.
Usually teams will agree that the metric is quality of life for zoo animals, so the debate is about whether zoos are good or bad for that quality of life.

Weighing between mechanisms: if the motion is solely about the efficacy of a specific mechanism, if a team has a counter-model (ie. a new mechanism to solve the motion), or if you are comparing to your front-half’s mechanism.

For example: Matt couldn’t think of anything as of writing this, check back later.

Weighing between backhalf/fronthalf: if you are on CG or CO and you are comparing to your OG or OO

For this section, refer to Mikko’s ‘weighing by round dynamics’ and ‘weighing by argument quality’ in the screenshot above.

Similar mechanism, different impact: (1) admit mechanism is similar, point out that the new parts are important, and (2) weigh the impact under same metric/criterion as fronthalf, then (3) weigh a new metric/criterion over fronthalf’s.
Similar impact, different mechanism: (1) point out flaws with other teams’ mechs, (2) weigh the mechanism, (3) admit the impact is similar, but add one new part and weigh the new part only.

Similar impact, similar mechanism: (1) admit some parts are similar, but argue that the new parts (larger impact, better contextualization, more mechs) are necessary to beat another team on the other bench. Most judges will not credit you a win if your fronthalf is already beating the other teams, but you can walk away with a 2nd.
Different impact, different mechanism: (1) weigh the impact under same metric/criterion as fronthalf, then (2) weigh a new metric/criterion over fronthalf’s.

I know this is only surface-level explanation of when to use weighing. This starts to get more complicated with examples, so I will pause and we will cover weighing strategy Part Two.

How to structure weighing:

I have a very simple step-by-step flow chart for weighing. In order, I go through these points of analysis in my speeches (if they are applicable):

Even if [their mechanism is true] [their impact is small/unimportant/harmful].
Even if [their impact is important] [we are more important with the same criterion they use].
Even if [their impact is important] [we are more important because of a variety of other criteria].
Even if [their impact is important] [their metric is unimportant and we have a more important metric].

These 4 points cover all common types of weighing. First, you mitigate the opponents’ impact to make it seem small. Then, you say “EVEN IF they are important” our impact or metric is bigger or better. (This gives the illusion that you are being very charitable.) Pick and choose which of these 4 points are necessary in your debate, and fill in the blanks.

Being comparative in weighing

In Lesson 2, you might recall that I wrote: Being uncomparative is either a) ignoring a tradeoff (competing analysis), b) comparing arguments on different criteria (false comparison). Lesson 2 covered competing analysis. this section will cover the second problem.

This second common problem with teams’ analysis is false comparisons (also known as being uncharitable). False comparisons are when you dump your advantages and your opponent’s disadvantages (instead of comparing to your opponent’s advantages), or when you make your impacts bigger in isolation rather than comparing to your opponent’s impacts.

To compare to your opponent’s advantages, obviously first you must identify their advantages (criteria and metrics). Identify the problem they are trying to solve, their proposed solution, and the criteria they are fulfilling.
Then you must align your cases advantages to their cases advantages. You will either already have an impact, or you can build a new impact to align the criteria.
Then weigh given the metrics and rubrics above.

But Matt, I can’t think of impacts that align / my opponents’ impacts are too good.

Yes, this is common even among the best debaters. If you can’t think of anything, do what good debaters do: just gaslight convincingly. Unfortunately, gaslighting convincingly is an advanced debate strategy we cannot cover in this course. We will cover this topic in Part Two: Advanced Debate Strategy, which is a course Buildacase will offer in the future. For now, you can ask for help on the Facebook page if you feel comfortable!

Exercises:

“Even if”

Review your past debate notes: choose a motion and choose one argument for each side under that motion.
Concede that argument’s impact, give that argument the benefit of the doubt.
Now, apply the ‘even-if’. Even if that argument is right, why is your side’s argument winning?
Pay particular attention to refutation. You do not want to default into refuting their argument only. The purpose of this exercise is to recognize criteria/metrics in a debate and add positive analysis why your argument fulfills the metrics better. It is more of an exercise in content generation.
This exercise should take 20-30 minutes.

Weighing a top-half exchange, giving the DLO weighing.

Open up a new debate video. Here is a playlist of Gwen Stearn’s and I’s recommendations.
Watch the first THREE speeches in the video (the OG and the LO). Write down the main arguments from each side, applying linear flow.
Pay particular attention to main impact given by each speaker.
List arguments in groups based on clashes, recognize and label the criteria and the metrics in the debate.
Prepare and deliver a DLO speech, prioritize weighing the LO’s arguments over the OG’s arguments.
*You can apply this exercise to your old debate speeches as well.
This exercise should take 45 minutes.

Important note about weighing exercises:

Judging debates and justifying your decision is a great way to force yourself to see how arguments interact and how they weigh against eachother. Buildacase will release a judging course soon. In the meantime, panel chairs that are willing to give you high-quality feedback.

In the final lesson of Part One: The Basics, we will review, map, and connect the concepts covered in the course.

Next Lesson: Lesson 3-2: The End.