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.