He's that most amazing of things, a cargo-cult Redditor. He's seen the way people on Reddit argue - they nitpick, they have lists of "logical fallacies" on hand that they accuse each other of, they link to articles that support their viewpoint - but he's too thick to understand how and why those rhetorical devices are used (and it's not like your average Redditor actually understands symbolic logic, citing sources or any other academic discipline to any depth). So he imitates them - instead of nitpicking he just seizes on irrelevant things, he accuses people of using "logical fallacies" that don't make any sense in context and I sincerely doubt he has any real understanding of what most of them mean (let alone that if someone's logic may be flawed, that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong), and instead of linking relevant studies or scholarly articles he just googles the point he's trying to make and then dumps the resulting links into his arguments without reading them - hence the frequent and highly entertaining incidents when the articles he links to actually argue against the point he's trying to make. He's got the smug and superior Reddit attitude right, though, I'll give him that.
He's imitating smart people (or at least people who he thinks are smart) without any real understanding. This is why when he comes up against an argument he can't refute outside of Reddit he has to take the point back to Reddit and ask the very smart people there (who all understand Rick and Morty) how to answer the question so that he can parrot it back. This is particularly the case in places outside Reddit that have a different posting culture and he comes across people, beliefs and attitudes that he is not familiar with. This leads to a lot of places dismissing him as a troll - he isn't a troll, he's just so stupid and oblivious to how what he says could be perceived in context that it begs the question about whether he has any theory of mind at all. He thinks a Reddit "facts and logic" debating style can win an argument anywhere. Not only is this not true, but he can't employ that style effectively anyway because he's too stupid.
He does not understand context - not the context of his own arguments (such as the fact that people can and do draw conclusions not just about what he says but about where, when and how often he says it, this really confuses him because he doesn't understand the concept of metatextual analysis), not the context of other people's arguments or the context of the articles he links to. He doesn't understand that the nature of a source is just as important as what the source says when judging it, because again he's just too autistic and stupid. He sees debate like a math equation, if his logic is better than the other guys logic then he must be right. You can out-argue someone and still be wrong, after all. A "gotcha" argument might win you Reddit gold, but it's not going to impress someone who knows what they're talking about.
It's just really interesting to see someone imitate a group of people without understanding them (Redditors) who themselves are imitating another group of people without understanding them (academics).
It really is cargo cults all the way down.
