posted 26th February 2024
Which weighs more? A kilo of lead or a kilo of cotton wool?
It's a trick question. They look like they should be different, but actually they weigh the same. However, you need a lot more cotton wool to get to a kilo. Lead is a much more efficient, concentrated way of acquiring weight. That's the reason exercise machines in gyms, the purpose of which is to build your strength by having you lift as much weight as possible, tend to be made out of lead rather than cotton wool.
You can think of a debate as being like a traditional pair of scales (see above). There is only limited space on the pans of the scale; debaters need their arguments to have the most concentrated weight possible, so that they can tip the scales their way more easily and quickly. Cotton wool arguments won't do.
This is where the technique known as 'weighing' comes in. It is only used when the two sides are arguing from a different basis; when, as it were, one side is using lead weights and the other is using iron weights. Lead is denser than iron; if you have two weights the same size, the lead one will be heavier and will tip the pan. You need to show that the basis of your argument 'weighs' more heavily in the debate than the other side's; that, as it were, your arguments are made of lead and the other side's are made of iron.
To take an example. The motion is This house would reduce immigration to the UK. Say the proposition argues that reducing immigration would improve the economy by encouraging employers to train up more native workers, thereby leading to a more skilled workforce and a stronger economy. The opposition argues that reducing immigration would damage the economy, because immigrants fill essential jobs and provide a lot of tax revenue, which will help the government to invest in infrastructure. No need for weighing here. The basis of both arguments is the economy. Both pans are, as it were, filled with lead. Debaters on each side simply need to make a more coherent, logical, well supported case for or against the economic benefits of immigration. They have to show that they have more lead in their pan than the other side.
But suppose it goes this way. The proposition makes the same argument for reducing immigration about the economic benefits of incentivising employers to produce a more skilled workforce. But the opposition argue that, even if reducing immigration would produce economic benefits, it would be damaging to the culture of Britain. The multicultural society that immigration has produced over the years has made Britain a more vibrant, diverse, interesting place; immigration adds to the energy and creativity of our cities. Reducing it would make us a narrower, more closed-minded society.
Now the debate is not about whether immigration benefits or harms the economy. It is about which is a higher priority: the health of our economy, or the richness of our culture? Is it better to live somewhere prosperous but boring, or somewhere less economically secure but more culturally dynamic? Which out of the economy and culture should 'weigh' more heavily when considering the pros and cons of immigration? The debaters, in their summary speeches, have to demonstrate not just that their arguments are clear, logical and coherent, but that the very basis of their arguments should weigh more heavily. That the economic health of a nation is more important than its cultural health, or vice versa. That their arguments are made of lead, not iron.
'Weighing' is quite a sophisticated, challenging technique. It requires you not just to build a logical case but to think hard about fundamental questions of principle and value; about what really matters the most. But then that is what any thinking person should be doing.
