Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.

The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author.

I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author.

The original claim was:

> But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.

In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue.

Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.

For example, the author is articulate and wrong about needing to give consideration to republicans :p