Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your ability to distill and refute the points in the article seem to be a result of deep literacy. Is this itself not the thrust of his main thesis?
Literature is beautiful and deep and fascinating. But it is also dangerous in its power to convey credibility where it may not be due. It is very easy to weave oneself into a net with reason and bind the net fast with literary pomp. How unassailable is my argument once I quote Voltaire!
Which implies that somebody responding to you in an argument would also need deep literacy to be able to dismiss such claims. But there is no argument that would progress better if one of the participants was less literate. Which does back up the original claim in the article...