I usually find his posts long-winded and unpersuasive, but for reasons that I've never understood he also tends to expose some serious ideological blind spots in those who disagree with him most vehemently.
I've seen it in discussions of everything from abortion, to immigration, to religious freedom. There is value in that, especially when he's often the only person voicing opinions that are common elsewhere.
I actually agree with this assessment, He does offer a valuable voice to the forum. As you said though, he's not a very persuasive arguer (although to be honest, most people aren't), and I'd also add that he tends to suffer from some serious blind spots of his own.
I probably have more mixed feelings about him than anybody else on the forum, sometimes I want to like him, other times he gets on my nerves. I think the most aggravating thing is his views on Trump. He recognizes that Trump suffers from horrendous, overarching character flaws, yet wants to analyze everything Trump does on a case-by-case basis rather than a holistic one. His worst example of this is in how he approaches Trump's sexual assault allegations. He seems to prefer analyzing every single one of the claimant's accusations in a vacuum rather than recognizing how it's indicative of an established pattern of behavior with a long history.
That's his most annoying trait in general: he'll sometimes go out of his way to avoid reaching a rather obvious conclusion and it's rarely for good reasons. It's a shame, too, because the when he isn't doing that, he's got interesting takes on things that provide a different perspective from the usual.
Poll
