As has been pointed out, this guy didn't really "destroy" the arguments for piracy. Pointed out flaws, yes, but hardly destroyed.
For example: the implication that every pirated game is a lost sale. No, not every one of them. A lot of them, yes, are lost sales. If the game weren't available for pirating, the people who really want it would go buy it. But honestly, the majority of people pirating stuff are frequently college age or younger, and we've grown up in a world where everything is one Google search away from a torrent or a download link, so to a lot of people my age, that's just part of how the world works. And after all, why pay when you can get something for free? You can twist rhetoric and logic to say that because they have the means to get something for free, of course they won't pay for it. But this is circular, as piracy is required to provide a free way to get games to justify pirating them. So in other words, that argument comes down to "piracy justifies piracy". Anyways. If somehow pirated games didn't exist, a lot of these people still want the games badly enough to either shell out the full list price for it or wait for it to go on sale on Steam or to come down in price or what have you. It's the exact same reasoning behind why you buy generic drugs rather than brand name--there's a cheaper alternative. It doesn't mean you wouldn't buy the brand name drugs, but there's no reason why you shouldn't save a few bucks. Same reasoning applies to a lot of pirates--"well yeah, I could buy it, but I could save a few bucks doing this instead." Yeah, there are some people who are just "HRRRNG NO I WOULD NOT EVER WANT TO BUY THIS GAME but I will totally pirate it and enjoy the fuck out of it without compensating the developers". They're not as much of an overwhelming majority as people want to think.
As for DRM and such, there are, to me, three ways to do it. The first is restrictions on accessibility, like requiring a valid Steam or Origin login or having online passes or some sort of bulky program to constantly monitor the game itself. The former--requiring a valid login for something--is effective, because it's not cumbersome on the player and the majority of PC gamers already have a Steam account and/or an Origin account. Online passes are just a nuisance, and I imagine effective at blocking online play for pirates but I don't have any actual gauge for its effectiveness, so that's mere speculation. The third type of this is what everyone hates, because oftentimes it directly and severely impacts gameplay for legitimate customers, while pirates who crack the game to remove that coding get a smoother experience. There is frankly no excuse for this sort of DRM, but that doesn't in any way count as a justification for pirating something. The second type: do what Serious Sam 3 or Dark Souls or Arkham Asylum did, and have a gameplay element change or be introduced (like the invincible scorpion in SS3) that makes progression in the game difficult or impossible. No idea how effective this is or how easy it is to remove something like this from a cracked copy, though. And the last type of DRM is "none," which is wildly ineffective because, as The Wither 2 proved, on the whole pirates don't give a rat's ass about how much DRM affects legitimate players, because no DRM makes it infinitely more easy to pirate something.
On the whole, as you may have noticed, I very much despise piracy and people who try to justify it. Ultimately, it removes incentive for people to keep doing work, decreases industry innovation (see Jim Sterling's article on casual gamers, where he explains this point in more depth), and is just plain selfish. After all, debate morals all you like, piracy is very explicitly illegal, and deciding "oh but I want this" and proceeding to break the law is just plain immature and stupid. Rule of Law, people. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow.
