Ask Lemmygrad

I'll try to break it down a little further for you.

You have quite a few assumptions built into this question, whether you know it or not.

Asserts that the entire point of view is inherently flawed and also that the writer may be too dumb to realize it.

Do you really think left wingers spend all day in books?

Strawman argument that falsely equates reading books all day as a requirement to be considered intelligent at least in comparison to people people without "research and knowledge".

How is the difficulty of something quantified?

A basic unanswerable existential question. How do we know anything? That calls into question any subjective question.

Considering how you phrase the question, there is clearly a lean here.

Assertion of personal bias with no example or evidence except for the vague "how it's phrased". Interestingly, your statement here directly contradicts your earlier call for objective measurability and moves the goalposts mid conversation.

How hard do you work at it?

Personal attack implying that your opponent may not be approaching the discussion honestly and may be deliberately misrepresenting themself.

Surely, those at the top of the biggest political ideologies work incredibly hard at their craft.

An unprovable assertion designed to suggest the integrity of the people in question without actually providing examples or evidence.

Though it can't be unsaid that not all of them work honestly.

Theoretically a small concession against the claim above, but noticeably doesn't say who, and usually ends up meaning "the people I don't agree with".

Not trying to be an enlightened centrist (because I'm not a centrist lmao). Simply acting as devils advocate here.

An appeal to avoid a personal connection to the arguments made because you are just representing the views of someone else, giving your a convenient "I'm just the messenger" escape clause from having to actually defend any of these claims.

Hopefully that's more clear to you.