Introduction

Weighing is a powerful skill for persuading the judge to accept your arguments and believe that your model works. It is also an effective technique for breaking down your opponents’ case.

To weigh is to compare the urgency and importance of two competing outcomes introduced by the motion.

Example

Take a simple example: is an earthquake or global warming more urgent? The earthquake, clearly — it is happening right now, lives are already being lost, and emergency aid is needed immediately. Global warming, though serious, operates on a longer timescale and has not yet caused the same scale of immediate, visible harm.

Into Practise

We’ll apply the same logic to our last blog’s motion: THW ban smoking on campus. (See: Stakeholder Analysis in Debate and IELTS Writing)

In this case, the Government side needs to prove that non-smokers’ right to breathe clean air on campus outweighs smokers’ right to smoke freely.

One effective way to do this is to draw attention to vulnerable groups — stakeholders who face disproportionate harm. In the previous post, we identified non-adult students and individuals allergic to nicotine. Here, we introduce another: pregnant people on campus. Without restrictions, their exposure to second-hand smoke poses a direct risk not only to their own health, but to that of their unborn child. The harm is immediate, physical, and falls on those least able to protect themselves.

Our model responds to this by establishing designated smoking areas while prohibiting smoking elsewhere. This is not an outright ban — it is a balanced policy that shields the most vulnerable while preserving smokers’ ability to smoke in designated spaces. We are not dismissing smokers’ interests; we are ensuring that one group’s freedom does not come at the direct cost of another group’s health.

The side whose model protects more stakeholders — especially the most vulnerable — wins the weighing.