And as a judge, I would almost always ask to see significant evidence brought up in the 2 AR. But just because some people abuse that ability doesn't mean that it is in poor form across the board (As Isaiah's gun control example demonstrates), and I think it is a bit broad to claim that a good team should never need to bring up new evidence in the 2 AR.
I already analyzed Isaiah's gun control example a while back, and I guess he forgot to respond. You might take a look at that.
But I agree. As a judge, I would definitely ask to see any new evidence, and also be equally as willing to disregard it if it seems like a cheap-shot.
In my opinion, a good 2AR will solidify the affirmative's position on the ground it has already claimed. Whether that takes the form of reading a new quotation, referencing an old quotation, or simply walking the judge down a trail of logic, as long as it doesn't re-shape the overall argumentation of the round I would accept it as a judge. If you are going to rule out new evidence, what else is out the window? New analogies?
Reading a new quotation and referencing an old quotation are two VERY different things. An old quotation has been there for a considerable amount of time and the judge has already had access to it in making their judgements. The problem is that any new analysis has the potential to re-shape the debate. You don't know what will be effective to a judge. If your new quotation or logic allows the judge striking new clarity that they never had in your previous speeches, or allows the judge to develop a new conclusion or warrant, then it could very well be unfairly cornering the negative team.
If no new evidence can be introduced in the 2NR, how is the negative supposed to respond to the 1 AR effectively?
There are numerous ways to respond to the 1AR. First of all, if none of the neg evidence and arguments apply after the 1AR, then they must have had a pretty crappy brief. At that point, they've lost the round anyway. On the flip side, the negative team has had an entire uninterrupted 13 minutes to hammer the crud out of the affirmative; there ought to be some
arguments that still apply - even after the 1AR. (in most cases there are) Use those! In these circumstances, continue to re-read evidence that has already been introduced in past speeches and provide supporting logic.
I'll say it again, I am generally against new evidence in the 2NR as well, but sometimes it does happen. And when it does happen, the negative is just begging to be pummeled by the 2AR. If this is the case, I would permit the affirmative to read a new card refuting only
the evidence read by the neg, assuming that it only refutes
and does not modify or add to the argument in any way. Even then, this is usually only necessary when the negative has brought in a new argument
, which is already impermissible on the part of the negative.
In all circumstances however, I am against the affirmative reading new power cards intended to build their case and not intended to address a specific piece of new negative evidence from the 2NR. This is like letting the 900-lb gorilla out of the cage - and taking away the negative's tranquilizers.