What was said above with Themes, Clump, Dump.
Also, maybe it's because I've grown more cynical over the past year and since I exited NCFCA, but I would call the judge's attention to the strategy of the Negative team (if it's abusive). Something like "they are trying to spread us so thin that we can't have a reasonable discussion about the merits of the case." Again, that depends on how abusive they are. If a case ACTUALLY has 20 gaping holes in it, then I think that a speed and spread could be warranted (but you, as Neg, should say that you are running so many arguments for a specific reason).
All of that's my opinion so it's worth what you paid for it. I've come to belief recently that you should be frank with the Judge on most things and not hide everything under the dark cloak of debate theory or aught else. Be genuine.
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC
2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter
2015-16 I Childs/Porter