The questions themselves (when the moonbats are actually asking them, instead of just hiding behind them) are often another form of shady rhetorical tactic, as well.

There's a difference between questions-to-learn and questions-to-teach. Conspiracy-buffs and bullshit-nozzles like the second type a lot.

When a person asks a question-to-learn there is a responsibility associated with it. It implies acceptance of the fact that they are ignorant of something, and a willingness to accept (at least provisionally) the actual answer they find, and also the willingness to continually re-evaluate the answer because of commitment to a higher ideal (like not being wrong all the time).

When a person asks a question-to-teach it is usually a sneaky way of laying out selected arguments or pieces of evidence and arranging them in a way that will prompt others to draw the same conclusions they've already come to. Or in a way that is designed to bait and thwart a rhetorical opponent.

The second type of question can probably be used to great effect if it's used well (i.e. the Socratic method) but it rarely is. Shitlarks just like it because they think it positions them as the "wise one" dispensing access to knowledge or educating others about the failings of the status quo. And then, like you said, they can hide behind their quasi-educator role, acting like their questions enrich political discourse somehow (when in reality they make it worse).

But the big difference between the two is that when a fool asks a question-to-learn they get smarter. When a fool asks a question-to-teach they get dumber.