The author does a good job of characterizing some of the bad faith techniques people use in debating an issue. He even commits some of them himself, as many other commenters have pointed out. He then just labels his opponents according to his taxonomy. How cleaver.
Some of these bad faith arguments are not necessarily bad faith unless taken to the degree described, so let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because someone uses logic, it is not bad faith. Just because someone asks you to looks at both sides of an issue, it is not bad faith. Just because someone points out hypocrisy, it is not bad faith. Etc. To just dismiss any of these counterpoints with name-calling is bad faith.
I think that in reality, you are very unlikely to change someone’s mind in a social media setting or short debate. The ones who matter are the ones who have not decided yet. This persuadable audience is not going to see bad faith arguments for what they are and are vulnerable to them. If you dismiss them and walk away, you lose.