Indeed, Anf. It's like my mock-syllogism to MIC: Maybe the premises can be conclusively refuted, but it's hardly guaranteed, and if they aren't then it doesn't mean my argument succeeds.
Hell, what L-Chaim is doing isn't qualitatively different from the following (in a "God is real" argument):
"Here is my syllogism...
1. A god exists.
2. If a god exists, then it is Christian god.
3. From 1 and 2: The Christian god exists!
Now, accept my premises, or refute them - those are your options!"
By removing any possibility that he will actually support his premises, L-Chaim is indicating that he is not willing to debate them, and - I suspect - that he is not capable of debating them.
