A few key points from the analysis:
His essential premises are
1. Arguments have the potential to be objectively better or worse.
2. A better argument is one that more accurately reflects objective reality.
3. Objective reality is both rational and empirical.
4. Therefore, a better argument is one that is more rational and/or supported by more empirical data.
Which leave us with not much. You need a good definition of reality and reason, which he never does. He doesn’t seem to know or acknowledge Munchausen’s Trilemma.
And, in this statement, I think you can see where he’s going with this.
Societies that encourage ostracism flourish, because their social rules contain rewards and punishments. Societies that disallow or punish ostracism lower — and eventually destroy — the value of The Argument, because failure to conform to The Argument no longer carries penalties.
Arbitrarily and incomprehensibly define the basis for truth, then start kicking people out who don’t agree with you.