This question here: If Spider Were the Size of Horses, What Sound Would They Make?
It was met with a VTC by AlexP because "the giant spider can make any sounds required by the story". See the comment exchange for the full picture.
Now, it is important for me to state that "the answer can be whatever the story requires" is not that insightful, as far as critiques go. You can take the most hard science question on the site and give that comment, and be technically correct. It is up to the author what level of scientific hardness they wish to adhere to. More specifically, any question involving magic can receive that comment, because magic is by definition counter-scientific. There are no solid laws of physics to fall back onto because they are already being violated, so surely for any plot another exception can be made. But do we want to banish all magic questions from this site? I don't think so. We receive magic and fantasy questions when the querents accompany their asks with the rules for their systems.
For example: a fire spell that works by extracting heat uniformly from the magic caster's body; how long could they sustain it before suffering hypothermia? "extract heat uniformly from the caster's body" is a rule fine enough to work with; you do not need to specify that the heat is exchanged through quantum tunnelling photons synthesised by midi-chlorians. Such details would never become 100% solid to begin with, as they are not a part of actual science. They need only be clear enough to reason about.
Potential answerers will disagree on what is "clear enough" because we have different levels in scientific education, imaginative power in different quantities and just a different taste in how hard science should be. That's nobody's fault, and sometimes the rules do leave gaps. Take this heat question and strip out the word "uniformly"; now there is ambiguity as to whether it is just the hands cooling down, or everything.
Now, I want to ask you. If you see that fireball question (imagine it also supplies by a couple paragraphs of worldbuilding context and is otherwise valid), notice that there is a gap or inaccuracy in the system described... what do you do?
- Comment, asking for clarification or pointing out the gap in the logic.
- Vote to close for Needs Details.
- Vote to close for Opinion-Based.
As you can guess, I consider this fireball question analogous to the linked spider question (which describes spider anatomy but to an extent some may consider insufficient). Please let me know if you disagree.
Personally, I would do #1 first and only #2 if the question is older than a couple of hours, and/or there are more clarification requests and the querent hasn't addressed them. #3 is something I would personally never do in this case, and I am still trying to figure out why someone would.
My understanding from the comments is that AlexP considers that this question, as stated, is so logically implausible that there is no coherent system left to reason with. Ergo any answer is equally valid, ergo the question is opinion-based.
I think that the first response to a lacking premise is to ask for clarifications, and the second response is to VTC as Needs Details. I reserve Opinion-Based for questions that cannot be salvaged with any amount of added details - not because they are implausible but because they ask something that is intrinsically impossible to answer using facts.
The sounds that an animal can produce are - in the broad sense, as in roars vs. chirps - a property of their anatomy. If the question does not provide enough anatomy to reason with, then the solution is to ask for more details about the anatomy. If no answers are provided, then VTC because there are Not Enough Details. This question is not Opinion-Based and it never will be, until someone asks for the most pleasant key of this spider's mating call.
I am intrigued to hear where other people stand on this.