There’s also an asymmetry in that rebutting even a trivially wrong argument takes much longer than it did for the other side to make in the first place.
You might think so. But in practice, the opposite is true. Teams that present lots of wrong arguments tend to make a lot of arguments that are wrong in the same way. So you can respond to 2+ minutes of bad arguments in 20 seconds by identifying these common threads.
As lukasschwab points out in his top-level comment, the narrative that fast presentation results in "quantity over quality" is nearly always not true -- "arguments are still evaluated at speed", and it's more typically "more arguments of greater quality" rather than "more arguments of lesser quality (although the "greater quality" part is, as lukasschwab notes, "a rough correlate to ability inasmuch as it's an early product of commitment".)
