https://x.com/garonnevik/status/1819090982429958284
In classical rhetoric, ad hominum attacks, and twisting the words of your opponent where they would say "but that's not what I said, nor how I meant it," is actually the weakest way to refute their arguments. It shows that you don't have a good case against their issue, so you resort to theatrics and distractions instead.
The reason that you want your opponents to agree with your representation of them is that you are seeking to win them over and persuade them. If they feel they have been misrepresented, they will never be persuaded, they will just continue to clarify again and again, until they realize you have no intention of actually hearing them.
If your goal is to persuade and reason with people, it's all in how you handle your refutation. If you are seeking to be polarizing, or popular with your own friends, you will misrepresent and do ad hominum attacks. Your goal will show through in how you handle your refutation.