It's hard to write an underhanded question which belongs on this site. See previous discussion: Has underhanded been getting too much like code-trolling?
The first question which you mention has already been in a tug-of-war which saw it closed and then reopened without substantive changes. This is a symptom of a long-running struggle for the identity of this site.
Isn't the point of this site for the users to answer the code challenges that they themselves find interesting? ... This is not stack overflow.
This site started out as a spin-off from StackOverflow because of a similar struggle there. Code golf questions had been accepted on SO, but there was a push to narrow its scope, and the compromise solution was to create this site as somewhere for the pro-code-golf members to continue.
So the earliest discussions on meta about the scope of the site borrowed from SO: see e.g. What should be the rules for questions on this site . That's the origin of the FAQ text
All questions on this site, whether a programming puzzle or a code golf, should have…
- An objective primary winning criterion, so that it is possible to indisputably decide which entry should win.
- A clear specification of what constitutes a correct submission. Test cases are highly encouraged.
The more traditionalist wing of CG tries to hold the site to these criteria. There are a number of other users who appear to regard them as obsolete. (I say appear because they tend to be less vocal on meta and chat, so I'm not certain what their argument would be). However, I don't think many of them are quite as radical as to baldly claim that "If it's fun, it's on-topic", which seems to be what you're claiming.
And then there are the drive-by members who see a question on the network-wide list of "hot questions", come in to vote and answer, and maybe remain part of the site community or maybe are never seen again. They don't really know what this site is about or what is on- or off-topic, and I suspect that many of them have formed the impression that this is a site where anything goes. This hot-question drive-by effect results in highly-voted questions which the traditionalists are convinced are off-topic, but some combination of the less traditionalists and the drive-byers who've picked up quick rep by answering the hot question vote to reopen.