Yes, the adage a "dropped argument is a true argument" remains true for many (but not all) forms of high school debate. That said, there is wiggle room in that an exceptionally stupid argument is not considered to need much response, but it should be touched on.

I suspect the idea is to address stupid arguments by fixing the ignorance creating them. Communication is an easy way to improve.

Still, it could be that the stupid arguments are malicious. In that case, perhaps one could prove it.

They do all of that, while speed reading their arguments at you!

Btw, for former debaters, OP of this thread is talking about topicality, theory/framework (which makes the gamework!), and reverse voting issues (RVIs)