No New Arguments in the 2NR A. Interpretation: New arguments should not be presented in the NR B.

Violation: The Negative presented new arguments in the NR C. Standards: 1. Time Skew: It is not fair for the negative to run new arguments in the NR because it allows the negative to shift to a completely different advocacy and essentially present a new case during the 6 minute NR. This leaves me with only 3 minutes to respond to his new arguments, skewing my time since I dont have enough time to respond to his new 6 minute case in a 3 minute affirmative rebuttal. 2. Ground: The negative running new arguments in the NR explodes the negative ground because the negative now has two different advocacies that the affirmative has to refute in order to win the contention level debate. 3. Predictability: Since have no way to predict what new arguments my opponent will run in the NR, there is no way I can be prepared to refute both the new arguments and the original 1NC in the 2AR D. Voter Fairness is a voter because debate would not exist and we would not be here without the rules being fair. 1. Ground is key to fairness because if one side starts off the debate with less ground than the other, it makes it harder for the other side to make arguments thus skewing the round and making it unfair. In order for debate to be competitivem the competition has to mean something. Also, fairness is a gateway issue because the judge needs fairness to be able to judge the round fairly. 2. Time Skew is key to fairness because if the time alloted during a debate is skewed towards the negative, then the negative will be able to prepare better arguments and will have more time to refute arguments, thus making the debate unfair since one side has more of an advantage in making arguments than another. Don't let my opponent spike out of the abusive arguments as the abuse has already occurred. The only way to solve the abuse is to vote aff.