Why does somebody automatically have to be a "shill" for anything just because they make a coherent argument contrary to yours? Aside from being a transparently

Why does somebody automatically have to be a "shill" for anything just because they make a coherent argument contrary to yours? Aside from being a transparently stupid and dishonest way to shut down debate through ad hominem, it's absurdly binary on how it categorizes agreement with you as correct and anything else as automatically mendacious. Could your arguments not by the same silly logic not then make you a shill for the extremely media-savvy, multibillion dollar system that's currently pushing specific and often politicized arguments about how climate change is a looming catastrophe? Whether they're wrong or not, I don't yet know and would prefer to debate on evidence more than politics, but if organized, well-financed effort to move a certain agenda is a hallmark of shills existing, then there must be shills for Big Climate too.