There's a bit of "dark side" style argumentation and use of examples, though on the whole it seems well-done. The ghost-lamp anecdote is one example; it illustrates his point, but being the only example he uses, suggests that the other side is pretty much just missing obvious explanations (which is possible, but it's not very good evidence of that point).

He also throws around a lot of stop-light, connotation-heavy pejorative terms in a few cases. They may be entirely accurate, but I don't think their purpose is promoting rational understanding.