That is the path I would take. All JR does, and all people like him do, is provide people with a encyclopedia of logical fallacies to use during arguments.
An “argument” with these kinds of people usually just drives you into a state of confusion trying to debunk lists of interconnected “facts” they are spewing out. Not only does it put that person in a place to “win an argument by default”, they are generally masters at shifting the burden of proof on to you.
Two approaches I take are: Recognize what a person is about to spout off and counter each “fact” they come up with, immediately. Or, you ignore that person and walk off.