If I think a methodological approach is poor, or an entire class of reasoning is faulty, how am I to convey that without seeming like I "didn't actually pay attention to what was actually said"?

Also, when I cite specific counterexamples to general claims that have been made, now it's "as if that is indicative of anything". If I was paying so little attention to what was actually said, how did I know what to find counterexamples of?

Regarding the "Gish Gallop" claim, the closest to an objective observer we have these days is large language models.

GPT-4 knows what a Gish Gallop is: "A Gish Gallop is a rhetorical technique that involves overwhelming an opponent with rapid-fire, vague, and numerous arguments that can't be easily addressed or refuted in real-time due to their sheer number and sometimes complexity."

So I asked GPT-4 whether my text was a Gish Gallop, and it said: "While it's certainly a lengthy and complex piece of text, its complexity and length don't automatically qualify it as a Gish Gallop. It is more of a detailed and in-depth critique or rebuttal, one that offers thoughtful analysis rather than a barrage of rapid-fire, unsupported claims. A Gish Gallop is designed to overwhelm and confuse an opponent, while this text seems designed to thoroughly examine and critique specific ideas and theories."

So, as close to objectively as we can have these days (sans assembling a team of experts), no, your characterization is incorrect.

Anyway, it's honorable to try to defend your friend, and I certainly don't expect you to address the issues here (remember--I pointed this out to you only as an example of why I can't learn as much from Elle's writing as you might think I ought to!).