Accusations about someone's motives demand evidence. It's notoriously difficult to prove another's motives, but when there is no evidence at all (beyond their argument being, in your estimate, wrong), then it is completely inappropriately to claim anything about their motives.

This is a neutral sub that does not tolerate personal attacks--they're now automatically banned per rule #3. A baseless argument that someone is being deceptive should be considered a personal attack, and should be prohibited.

This is particularly damaging here for a few reasons.

First, this is a debate sub, so someone "being wrong" is a required part of the package. Using genuine mistakes to make personal attacks is guaranteed to chill discourse.

Second, it is a relatively effective way to derail the actual topic. That's partly because the tenuous relationship we have together makes people reluctant to share anything with you, if they're told you're lying.

I know I personally have felt obligated to go far out of my way to prove my sincerity in my submissions so that people will be willing to discuss them. And then, when I do provide as much evidence as possible, it turns out that this too can still be used to cast baseless doubts over my motives.

In the future, I intend to respond to such attacks by saying as much, and if that is not effective, by reporting those comments for violating rule #3.

When emotions run high, remember the only thing you really need to prove in a debate is that your opponent is wrong. There's really no need to guess what motives lead them down that path.