Are there situations where this third possibility holds true, that it would be rational, factual, and contextually sound to quote someone who does not agree with the point one is making?
Here is what I think. As long as there is a disclaimer, as long as sources are given, then even if the conclusion the one using the quote/s arrives at is incorrect, there really shouldn't be an issue. It is an individual's duty to examine for theirself the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion.
What Creationists (of whatever camp) try to do is use all the negatives or unknowns in the theory of evolution and try to sum it up to arrive at the conclusion that therefore, evolution is impossible. As an example, if one scientist believes in punctuated equilibrium and another believes in gradualism, the WT will happily quote what the first scientist perceives as a flaw in gradualism along with what the second believes is a flaw in punctuated equilibrium, thereby canceling out any possibility for evolution for the lay reader. As a more informed person would surmise, evolution doesn't rest soley on this two seemingly competing theories. There are many more options, and that might include the possibility that even both have occurred at different times in different species.
Aside from your question, the consensus of biology, geology, anthropology, etc. converge at evolution, and so even though we have gaps in understanding does not mean that therefore, evolution is not true. The WT and Creationists alike try to pick out the unknowns or seeming inconsistencies without looking at the big picture, simply trying to confirm not only Special Creation, but along with it their peculiar flavor of it (WT sides with science on the Earth's age, yet deny evidence for humans existing long before A&E; YEC take the Genesis account literal word-for-word and arrive at the Earth only being a few thousand years old).