He exhibits the same exact problem that everyone else tends to exhibit at the fundamental level when challenging something that is debatable:
He never states what he wants to replace the thing.
This is also the crux at why quitting addictive habits is impossible. What do you do instead? Without any "insteads" to do, or even a suggestion of such things to do instead, the original proposal becomes a meaningless white noise complaint of no positive net value.
Often, whether or not alternatives are suggested is literally the lighthouse you search for in a debate storm. If your opponent cannot suggest alternatives, then even if their proposal is correct they've demonstrated they aren't worthy enough to heed and that subtracts from the value of their argument.