As a tangential but related point, I think this can be a very dangerous position.
Arguments aren't created in a vacuum, and neither is the lion's share of what makes an argument "good". This is true even discounting the fact that the dominant measure of argumentative quality is largely a function of persuasion.
Producing arguments takes a lot of work and money. That's basically the only reason think tanks and law firms exist. It's also where a lot of marketing money -- political or otherwise -- gets spent. Having really good arguments for something mostly indicates you've invested a lot of time, money, or both into constructing those arguments. (edit: note that this is not an indicator that the thing is actually true, which is the root of the problem).
edit: sometimes, as in science, the motive can be fairly pure. In those cases, even though lots of money is spent constructing the arguments, we can still very much trust the veracity of those arguments.
Sometimes, as in the case of many (not all) think tanks, somehow every argument and study produced always re-entrenches and provides support for a pre-existing viewpoint. I'm therefore far more inclined to view these with suspicion, which is really an ad hom but imho justified.