Who the hell does this guy think he is? A background in programming does not make somebody qualified to broadly classify and stereotype as invalid entire classes of arguments. Frankly the entire piece can be summarised as a self-gratifying ego inflationary tripe that serves only to reinforce the authors misguided belief that people care enough about what he says to discount anecdotal evidence and millenia of debating technique evolution.
Can someone else continue through levels 4-7 ?