In my view, saying that someone
is either reckless and indifferent the validity of their arguments (i.e., the equivalent of
being a
liar) or knowingly stating outright falsities (i.e., a
liar),
is certainly «
tantamount» to discrediting their arguments by attacking them personally.
Then the question would
be whether, if I say that Brandon
is either reckless and indifferent to validity (
tantamount to lying) or an outright
liar,
am I focusing on brandon or his arguments as the topic?