Some folks just don't 'get it'. Arguing against somebody else's doctrine is one thing. Some folks, though, argue against a doctrine they've made up and then imputed to other people. It's basically a 'straw man' argument, and it reflects very badly on the folks who make it.
If one can't state one's "opponent's" position clearly, completely, and correctly, in terms with which he would agree, and which he would find inoffensive, one has absolutely no business commenting on the matter.
I'll try to remember that as I read things posted in caucus, where I am able to go only while wearing a gag.