Is it legitimate for the 2NC to make new arguments?

You asked three questions about this. Here goes:

1. Is this (arguing that the 2nc cannot present new arguments) an "unfair" argument.

------well, i think you can make the case that it isn't fair; it means the negative cannot adjust their strategy after hearing the 2ac putting them at a fair strategic disadvantage because 2 aff's often explain things that weren't explained in the 1ac; the 2nc is a constructive which is a speech, by definition, in which new arguments can be advanced; it might be difficult to enforce--how do you tell that an argument is new versus an extension? (this difficulty is probably the same one faced in rebuttals but its probably more difficult given the negative is still building up their position just as the 2ac did; eg what about a new impact to a 1n disad? is the 2n allowed to do that?); it isn't reciprocal--the 2ac got to advance new arguments for the 1ac but now the 2nc can't do that; it turns tradition on its head--just 10 years ago, the norm in high school was that 2nc's presented only new arguments and aff's complained if the 2nc just extended and did not present new arguments (which they could group and answer more easily than detailed 2nc extensions).

--------i guess the bottom line for me, if you had me as a judge, is, i don't really mind new arguments in the 2nc--the 1ar can answer them just as easily as 2nc extensions.

--------at the same time, there are judges who will find your position persuasive because they dislike new 2n positions. you can argue that its unfair because the 1ar can't make new arguments (although i think almost any judge would permit the 1ar to respond to new 2nc arguments--otherwise, the aff. can't respond). to make your argument persuasive, i'd define what a new position/argument is; then, list out what strategic ground you lose by the negative being able to argue new positions in the 2nc (you lose the ability to run certain add-on advantages; it damages the responses you presented in the 2ac because you didn't expect them to make new arguments; it gives the negative too much leeway to present new policy positions that skews the debate in their favor); you can also argue that it violates "community norms"/"rules of debate" and say that the expectation and preparation for debates is that the 1ac and 1nc present their positions and then the two sides argue about those positions; argue that it harms the debate process because the 2nc positions do not get developed (which, from my view, actually helps the aff., its just too hard for the 2nr to extend all of the 1nc and 2nc arguments when the 2nc advances new arguments; still give this argument a shot).

2. Should this be said in the 1AC, or can I still say it in my 2NC?

------you can say the argument in either speech; i guess it would be more persuasive if you put it in the 1ac so the negative at least knows that you are telling them you expect them to present all of their positions in the 1nc. that way, they have advance warning of what you plan to argue.

Jim