> and they incentive verbal diarrhea by making the winners the one who can produce the most 'correct' arguments in the least amount of time No, this may happen

> and they incentive verbal diarrhea by making the winners the one who can produce the most 'correct' arguments in the least amount of time No, this may happen at low-level tournaments which still have lay/'mommy' judges, but no actual high-preff'd tournament judges are giving out ballots based on the number of arguments run. Policy is a back-and-forth activity, and whatever arguments are made in the constructives have to actually hold up to the responses to them. If a team is running 9 T arguments, and the Aff team doesn't address their shitty "'The' means a specific singular entity, so using only one part of the USFG is a violation' T argument but covers 3 of the actual strong ones and runs a T-abuse argument as well, no judge is handing Neg the ballot for that. And none of that is even beginning to touch on Condo (conditionality), which is a whole area of theory arguments specifically addressing Neg running arguments that they don't extend (and why they shouldn't be allowed to). That's especially effective when they're doing some kind off-case abuse like T or competing CPs. Also, what do you mean "argument that is spread"? You either spread your speech or you don't. No one spreads arguments individually.