Groypers can not refute PPP's arguments because PPP's arguments are completely incoherent.
PPP will at various times claim that AF are bad optics and yet at other times, PPP will claim that optics don't matter.
PPP will at various times claim that Nick is working for the feds and at other times claim that Nick is going to be taken down by the feds.
PPP will at various times claim that Nick is ruining his life and should quit and yet at other times, PPP will claim that he is actually trying to give AF advice in hopes of making them better.
I don't see how PPP is working from any coherent moral or philosophical framework. He just throws a bunch of spaghetti at the wall, whatever random criticism and accusations that come to his head, regardless of whether any of them contradictory or mutually exclusive. I mean, which of PPP's arguments were you wanting to be rebutted because they can't ALL be correct?
And yes, "You are fat" is a perfectly legitimate counterargument. Id say an obese homeless friendless unemployed loser who has been disowned by his parents who spends his days obsessing over e-celebs rather than improving himself has some seriously misplaced priorities.