Weighing

Weighing occurs when a team explains why the argument they have established is more important than the argument that has been established by the other team. By necessity, weighing assumes that the other team has proven something; although it may have been mitigated, weighing assumes that the argument is still true in some respect. Weighing can be done for both the mechanisms of an argument (i.e. suggesting why an outcome is more probable on their side despite both teams having arguments that show why their side leads to that outcome) or for the outcomes/impacts of an argument/clash compared to other arguments (i.e. showing why the impact of their argument/clash they won is more important than the impact of other arguments/clashes).

• Weighing Competing Frameworks: Teams are permitted to explicitly debate the criteria or framework by which the round should be adjudicated. Judges must adjudicate this debate about criteria rather than applying their own preferred criteria.
• UADC wording: taking the contributions of both teams and comparing them using specific metrics, such as whose policy is more likely to be effective or who helps more people.