Never judge a philosophy by its abuse

[Whateverist]

I think that it is wise advice.  

Essentially, it is isolating the individual from the philosophy, and that a failure to execute the concept is not a failure of the philosophy. It is also saying that you cannot judge the philosophy by someone who is not adhering to it.

I think there is another concept, which goes along well with this, I see often not followed in discussions.  I wasn't familiar with it by name, until this recent year.

Principle_of_charity

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

Neil L. Wilson gave the principle its name in 1958–59.

In a debate, the goal is to win, but ultimately the goal is truth.  I think that this is a good philosophy in that regards (even if I don't always successfully fulfill it.)

I think you make an excellent point and present it well.  Around here we often complain of being straw manned but nonetheless attack dumbed down versions of other people's points.