It's literally the same as the HN guideline of responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says; it enables the debate to proceed on a substantive basis, rather than becoming a pointless back-and-forth of unfalsifiable allegations about motives.
It seems at least equally naive to me to ignore the strategic value of choosing the ground on which to make your rhetorical stand instead of charging forward blindly.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It seems at least equally naive to me to ignore the strategic value of choosing the ground on which to make your rhetorical stand instead of charging forward blindly.