Why Weighing Matters
Most close PF rounds are decided not by who has more arguments, but by who explains why their arguments matter more. You will be able to explain why weighing is often the deciding factor in a ballot.
The Problem Weighing Solves
By the end of a round, both teams usually have some surviving offense — a judge is often left holding two true-sounding stories and needs a reason to prefer one. Weighing gives the judge explicit permission and justification to vote for your side even if they find some of the other team's arguments persuasive too.
Weighing Should Start Early
Novices often save weighing for Final Focus alone, but comparative weighing claims can and should start as early as Rebuttal, so the judge has been thinking in your preferred terms the whole round rather than hearing it for the first time in the last two minutes.
By the final speeches, Pro has an economic impact and Con has a civil liberties impact, both plausible.
Without weighing, the judge must guess which matters more. With weighing, Pro says: 'Even if you buy Con's civil liberties concern, our economic impact affects ten times as many people and happens immediately, while their harm is more speculative and affects a smaller population — that's why you weigh our impact first.' Now the judge has an explicit reason to prefer Pro's story.
1. Why is weighing often the deciding factor in close PF rounds?
2. True or False?
"Weighing should only be introduced for the first time in Final Focus."
Answer all 2 to check.
Weighing tells the judge which surviving arguments matter more — start it early, not just at the end.