Well, the fact that left and right exists doesn't implies that you need to be on one or other side. You can have some ideas from ones and some from the others. Then you are a center person and it's also legit. Even you can have ideas outside of this duality. I don't think it's pointless, it's a way to define politic ideas. Maybe someone uses it to make enemies, but I think one can be more left or more right and with no enemies, just citizens that think different and democracy (when it works if it does) tends to equilibrate the two different ways.
Discussion
Fact is cold hard, fact is not left or right. Left or right is just an illusion measured by a subjective perception. Anyone saying they are left or right is just saying they care more this than that without actually measuring it in objective scale. Anything can be measured in a well defined system, any argument without defining the system is useless argument. Oh I know someone will argue then the definition of such system can be subjective, no it definitely can be objective and there are methods ready to be implemented if you don’t jump and define yourself in the first place.
So ethics are useless and pointless because there's no objective measure? Philosophy is nothing also an illusion? All human sciences are illusions because there's no exact measurement scale?
All sciences are measurable, ethics and philosophy are not measurable. Arguing on a non measurable thing is pointless. They are at best an opinion until measured.
I made my university studies on philosophy so we are not going to achieve a consensus here. But I understand your point. I disagree, of course.
You see we cannot achieve a consensus because it is not measurable. If you want to continue this topic and somehow work together to come up with a system to measure ethics and philosophy then I am happy to collaborate.
That would be a great goal to achieve, maybe at some point we'd reach some interesting point!
As I see, we cannot achieve consensus because we have different points of view about what is or not arguable, not because it is not measurable, as I see (the condition of being mesurable to argue is yours, I don't think its mandatory).