When you consider the actual context of the essay and that the person to whom the author is speaking directly is the sister of an MP and herself a MEP, this kind of well-actually does ring hollow.
The sister of a generationally-wealthy MP, both the products of extremely wealthy families who did not have to work for their money (which is why they are both in politics - because they're pretty useless everywhere else).
Sister
When you make an argument in general terms, you can't call no-fair when someone takes it at face value and counter-argues in equally general terms. That's not cheating, it's just assuming good faith.
When people point out that one's counter-argument, by virtue of ignoring the context the original argument is steeped in, is not actually countering any argument, they aren't saying that the counter-argument is "cheating" - they are adding context.
You can call it "adding context" if you concede that said context implies the original argument was badly phrased, in that the most direct reading is not what the writer really meant.
Or I could just call it "adding context". I could also expect readers to not have to be spoon-fed, and to avoid launching themselves into "counter-arguments" before they have understood what they are arguing against.
An argument that doesn't contain adequate context to be understood is a bad argument. You can't expect people outside your exact bubble to have enough context to figure out things you're literally not saying.