This is old. I believe I already addressed most of them in other threads. I wouldn't waste time on the details and separate claims, but I'd take him up on the paradigm level and ask him about his epistemic criteria, i.e. how he comes to knowledge about the things he asserts and what his justification is.

But there's no use because I don't think he would even understand the criticism considering the low tier arguments and word-concept fallacies he makes.