That interpretation of F-P’s argument style is really much too kind. Making unreasonable inferences from the evidence is what F-P does in his rare periods of rational lucidity. The rest of the time, as I found out from trying to debate him on health care, the “evidence” he presents is either flat-out wrong or deceptively cherry-picked. It’s a lot like debating with a gun nut. The only thing that matters is that they win the argument. Even acknowledging inconvenient facts, let alone being swayed by them, is not in the cards.