His approach is straight from Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'.
Indeed it is. Rail about logic then marginalize it as high school naivete when it is used. Use generous quantities of ad hominem and ridicule while failing to address, in a calm and rational manner, the key issues. It is a style designed to prevent, rather than foster, thought and learning. It also makes it unprofitable to attempt to engage such a person in rational, friendly debate. The best you can hope for is to put forward your best arguments and let the readers decide for themselves. If I am a judge and these are the briefs upon which I must decide, I will certainly not hold credible an argument riddled with logical errors even a high schooler should be able to spot and avoid.