You’ve just delivered the greatest 2NR of your life. Certain that you’ve just won the round, you sit back in your seat with a grin. There may be one more speech left, but the round is essentially over. You hammered in your points, and demolished the mediocre refutation that aff used the entire round. The 2AR is underway, and you’re zoning out back at the prep table. And then you hear something that makes you sit straight up in your chair: the 2A just brought up a completely new argument, right here in the last speech of the round. And, just as you feared, when you get your ballot back you find out that you lost the round, with the only comment in the RFD being that the judge was persuaded by the brand new argument in the 2AR.
As long as debate exists, 2AR abuse will as well. Whether it’s done intentionally or not doesn’t really matter, it’s equally frustrating in either form. Let’s examine the issue, starting with why judges vote for 2AR abuse, and then move into some ways that its effects can be mitigated.
Why are judges persuaded by abusive arguments?
Getting to the core of the issue should be our first step. Presenting a new argument in the last speech of the round is clearly unfair, so why do so many judges vote off of said arguments? Well, spoiler alert, the judge probably isn’t doing it to be mean. It probably means that either they didn’t notice that abuse happened, or that they don’t understand that it’s abuse.
Let’s look at that first potential: as blatant and obvious as it may seem to those of us who submerge ourselves in debate, the reality is that 2AR abuse is almost always subtle. There’s no neon sign that says, “THIS IS A NEW ARGUMENT, DON’T LISTEN TO IT!” Factor in lack of sleep and a +1 hour long debate about subsidies, and suddenly it’s not so surprising that judges vote for teams who abuse the 2AR. I can’t blame them, can you?
The alternative is that the judge notices a new argument in the 2AR, but has no idea that this is actually an unfair strategy. And since you don’t have any more speaking time, it’s impossible to tell the judge. You would inform compliance, but compliance can’t do anything since no rules were actually broken. But don’t flip the prep table! There is hope.
What can you do about it?
While there may not be anything that you can do to draw attention to 2AR abuse after the round, there are certainly things that you can do to draw attention to it during the round. How? Well, it’s pretty simple: I recommend taking a few seconds in the 2NR to tell the judge one thing: that new arguments in the 2AR are unfair and shouldn’t be considered when deciding the winner. It’s an extremely bad idea to “accuse” the affirmative of 2AR abuse that hasn’t happened yet, but casually reminding the judge of debate ethics will make them think more carefully about the 2AR. Subconsciously, you can make the judge more attuned to new arguments.
For example, after your first voting issue, you could say “as a reminder, the affirmative team cannot use any new responses to this as we will not have a chance to address them.” Reference this fact towards the beginning of your speech and the end of it, and the gears in the judge’s mind will start turning. As an additional benefit, it can be very persuasive to show how none of the affirmative responses are valid and then combine that with a reminder that no new responses are allowed: the judge is left with no choice but to vote for you.
But, you say, doesn’t this only work if you know that the affirmative is going to bring up a new argument? Well, yes… Unless you do it every round. I would strongly encourage you to make it a habit of doing what I laid out above in every 2NR you give. Doing so will exponentially increase the chance of the judge catching new arguments if they are brought up, but it will also discourage the affirmative from bringing them up in the first place.
Find a way to clue the judge in to 2AR abuse that fits with your style, do it every round, and I promise that you won’t be disappointed. Also, this same strategy can work in the opposite way: as well as reminding the judge about the rules regarding new arguments, remind them about the rules regarding dropped ones. That way, if the affirmative drops the second subpoint (always the most important one, right?) to your third argument, the judge is more likely to notice. My goal here isn’t to give you a script to read every round, it’s to simply remind you of the necessary information so that you can build your own personal script or phrases.
Finally, if you think that 2AR abuse has occurred, I would strongly encourage informing the affirmative team when the round is over. Don’t continue the debate after the judge leaves the room, just tell them what you think happened, and possibly ask for their input. Regardless of whether or not they knew that it happened, gently informing them of your side of the situation can go a long way towards preventing similar incidents in the future. Can we completely end 2AR abuse? Of course not, that would be absurd. But, even just quickly mentioning it in one or two sentences of the 2NR can help you, the judge, and your opponents.