Many opinions held on the right aren't valid, unworthy of the effort required to debate them (i.e., climate change is a hoax, race science is legitimate).
They aren't politically aligned views. At all. There are flat earthers who are liberals and there are flat earthers who are conservative. You might as well say atheism is only a left wing view and only right wing people have faith. It's again a base reduction on a fallacy that tries to establish only intelligent views can be held by the left, in order to shut down real scrutiny - when in fact many of them are anything but. It's the same nonsense as 'creatives are pacifists' and with them in charge there would be no war. Left or right is not an idication of ignorance or stupidity.
People ask obvious questions, knowing you can't engage, because the very basis of your argument is not broad enough to withstand scrutiny and you will be embarassed. And in this day and age, rertreating and relying on the virtuous nature of your argument is considered enough. Most, if not all people like yourself argue based on such flimsy premises and with such severe misunderstandings it's not even worth debating with
you. Think about
that. When you look for an answer, it's not worth anyone's time to indulge
you.
Because your concepts, framings and points of reference are so wide of the mark at your instantiation of the debate, that it's obvious you don't have the background or maturity to discuss these topics. You literally used a story of the tar baby, in which the trap was set by Bre-Fox (or yourself) in the stupid analogy. The whole 'trap' was based around never having the intention to respond in good faith and the 'invalid position' was the equivalent of a tip of the hat. Lastly, the fox sits there sniffing his own farts at the end and still 'loses' because of rash, arrogant, impulsive behaviour.
But it's a good analogy for
exactly what's happening if you analyse it and not just toss out a little snippet that suits a very manipulated point of view. There are plenty of people on the left who are open to intelligent debate like Joe Rogan, who you run out with your purity tests and then call them right wing. You and your ilk are dogmatic and you run away from most debates, because you have little beyond a surface quote or mimicked argument and you can't really articulate the complexities to counter argue the downsides or compromises that need to be made and weight them against alternatives. Another example is framing 'affirmative action' as a racial positive instead of a societal positive.