One of the things that sinful men do to escape accountability is to pretend that they are deeply concerned about higher abstract principles. They want to detach character and history from all their disputes, and they want to do it for what should be obvious reasons.
When Jesus was dealing with the woman who had been caught in the act of adultery (all by herself, but that inconsistency in the accusation is another story), what did He tell the accusers? He said, famously, let Him who is without sin cast the first stone. Now He was not talking about sinless perfection. He was not saying that no one can ever bring a charge against someone unless they have never sinned in any way throughout the course of their lives.
Now of course, there is a sense in which this is true. No sinner has the right to accuse anybody else of anything. But the sinless one, God, has told sinners—magistrates, pastors, elders, parents—to deal with the sins of others. But this authority to do so is a delegated authority, and the sinless one who gave it to us will revoke that authority under certain conditions. That is what Jesus is doing here.
He is most likely talking about the sin in question—adultery. Let him who is without sin in this area cast the first stone. But regardless, He takes the character of the accusers into account. It is in the highest degree relevant. What would He have said if one of the Pharisees, stone in hand, had said, “But we want you to consider the arguments themselves. Look at the evidence. We have some primary documents . . .It is not right to try to make this about us.”
But it was right. Jesus lived the embodiment of right, and when He turned the tables this way, it was holy. God hates hypocritical accusers. He rejects, with loathing, all attempts to separate arguments and evidence from character.