"New" Arguments

Here are a few interesting critiques I sometimes hear from atheists toward some theists and apologists:

You just use other people's arguments.
You never say anything new.
You're uncreative/uninspired.

Basically, the idea here is that the theist is apparently at some sort of fault because they didn't come up with their own argument.

The rational behind genuinely using this critique is absolutely fascinating to me because it should be quite clear to the actual logical thinker that no one has to recreate truth. If something is true, then it is true, even if it is boring. Even if it has been said the same way a thousand times, it is still true. Your creativity is not important to the matter.

If you already have the right answer, who cares where it came from.

It is irrelevant if I use a logical argument that someone else came up with - it doesn't somehow make it wrong. If it is a logically sound and valid argument, then... seriously, what are you trying to insist? The implications that an argument, a reality, or a truth could somehow be invalidated because it was not the speaker themselves who first uttered it is absurd. It's literally bizarre. I thought these people were supposed to be smart?

If the argument is attempting to stem from the rational that the person involved, using other people's arguments, is not smart for doing so, that is - surprise - also irrelevant. Someone can know truth and be stupid. Furthermore, it's an interesting logical leap. Someone has to be smart enough to be able to comprehend and discern between all of the various arguments and viewpoints out there - they could only be accused of being not smart if they were simply vomiting out arguments without understanding the points those arguments are making, perhaps demonstrating that they agree with two contradictory opinions without being able to back themselves up.

All in all, this "argument from unoriginality," I suppose, is certainly a logical fallacy.