Who determines what is fair? Let's say a columnist makes a case that the holocaust was the mostly deadly effort by government to exterminate a people. Shall we dismiss that claim not based on the merits, but because the columnist did not give "fair" treatment to holocaust deniers?
I realize we are not saying the claim is like the holocaust, but if fair is dependent on balancing one's claim with counter arguments, the I propose almost all opinion pieces are not "fair" and thus have no case.
You keep going back to intentions as the underlying principle to determine if he argument made has validity. It's simply an ad hominen (personal) attack and thus a logical fallacy. Take one claim made by the author and refute it. Claim that Trump did not drive over greens or take a mulligan and provide evidence. Or claim this is typical golf behavior. Limbaugh used to hate Obama for wanting a do-over which he called mulligans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYcYCkH1p_8
Who argues like you want?