Comment by potsandpans

There is of course nuance as with everything. Potentially arguing in bad faith myself, I don't consider discussing non-falsifiable claims, giving fiery speeches to sell books and engaging in the general cesspool of internet mud slinging to be "argumentation." If we're considering dunk-style quips and counter attack as arguments, then sure, we can step into this highly relative middle ground you've proposed. But those are fights and grandstanding.

A (productive) argument is about arriving at truth through discourse, the other stuff is largely vitriol or unproductive. It's unfortunate that we have the same word to apply to two different concepts.

The OP said, "I was taught early: Examine and, if necessary, attack both, for the credibility of a person..."

"Attack the person" is not a productive / valid way to approach a counter argument. It's even got a fallacy associated with it. If Bibi says, "All people deserve the right to defend themselves." It's not a useful or appropriate response to respond with, "You have zero credibility as the leader of an apartheid state so anything you say is meaningless." It may be true that a person offers arguments in bad faith, but also, the concept introduced by this person can be true in themselves.

It's more difficult to unpack, analyze and develop more sharp and compelling arguments against. It's a lot easier to say, "shut up, bitch."

Both have a place in culture and society, but to say something like, "I was taught to attack the person" with reference to argumentation and then to defend it with, "well... there's no right way it's whoever is listening" is somewhat disingenuous.