To miss means I did not see it. I did not miss it so much as reject its premise.
A child who throws a PB&J sandwich on the carpet, and doesn't realize why they're going to timeout, has a lesson to learn. However, while we recognize the need to educate the child, how does one duplicate results to adults that do the same exact thing? Their reaction of "friends of our enemies" is driven by emotion, and it's frustrating...because they surely would not accept that argument if posited by their enemies.
And of course, their enemies won't accept that argument from their mouths either.
But then we get into Fair vs. Just: while the fair solution would be to prohibit both sides from using said rhetorical weapons, whoever sees themselves as weaker will see this as disarming lambs before wolves. To disarm, I'd try to shame them. Would A want B to use that argument? No. Would B want A to use that argument? No. Thus, neither of them can use it, full stop.
At this point, the slicker members will realize they just agreed to publicly disarm themselves of very useful weapons. Either they accept it, or say that this line of inquiry does not apply to such delicate situations, and requires a more (nebulous) nuanced approach. The shape of this nuanced object, by the way, is left up in the air.
Alas, there's a reason why an Appeal to Nuance is such an effective ploy: I have yet to find a way to counter it like Zerglings to Immortals in Starcraft 2...