Camp statements and arguments in support of camp statements can, and we believe should, be recognized and presented on a different level, in different pages.
A Camp Position (ie. We believe that separate pages for supporting arguments should be supported) is not the same thing as an argument in favor of a camp position (ie. ... because some people may agree with the camp position, but not agree with the supporting arguments published in the same page as the camp position and seeming to represent themselves to be part of what the supporter is being asked to support)
Failing to differentiate and present the two things separately, (camp statements, and arguments in support of camp statements) can, and likely will contribute to a chilling effect on people's willingness to support camps that they might otherwise support.
For instance, the camp position, "Immigration should be tightly monitored" might draw considerably more support if a particular author's reasoning "... because wet backs are a nuisance" is left out of the camp position and presented as a supporting argument.
People who have other reasons for believing immigration should be tightly monitored, and who are not bigots, will be reluctant to support a published camp position that identifies itself with bigotry.
Many potential examples (not just the bigotry example) exist where people may be willing to support a position for a wide range of different reasons.
Where consensus is achievable amongst a wide range of cultural points of view, due to a wide range of reasons that may be incompatible with each other but still supportive of the same camp position, it is a shame to contribute a chilling effect to the outcome of such consensus.
Furthermore, support for individual argument contributions that are attached to camps, but clearly not considered part of what the supporters of the camp are endorsing, will invite much more participation and interest, and ... depending on how it is handled and managed... click back advantages, in the system.