I've listened to a few lectures recently which critique aspects of the New Perspective. And in each case the speaker was careful (either consciously or unconsciously I am not sure) to generate a strong hermeneutic of suspicion with regards the arguments proffered by NP proponents. This was done by starting with either ad hominem, misrepresentation or the employment of (unfair) scare tactics.
The thought: I wondered if these speakers felt they had to do this, i.e. start with spin, because they are deep down unsure that the evidence speaks for their own case?
So, when you hear a speaker try to manage the way data will be heard by enforcing not a hermeneutic of love or generosity, but one of suspicion, perhaps they do this precisely because they realise their opponent's argument makes sense.