He takes the argument Daevryn presents and then pushes it to the logical extreme in order to reveal the inherent flaw within the guy's article.

Basically, the playing to win article says "Everything is balanced and good players, instead of whining and crying, abuse all bugs/exploits/little tricks in order to win, and thats a good thing. Except lets just contradict that entire previous assertion by saying that there are indeed situations where playing exclusively to win completely destroys games, such as the Akuma situation"

But he sets super vague parameters on what an "Akuma" situation is - apparently the majority of the pro community agrees that there is a problem with allowing Akuma, but what constitutes majority, what constitutes pro, and when does scrub whining change to legitimate game balance issue?

The entire article is saying something like playing to win is good in balanced games, creating multiple layers of sophistication and higher level play, while bad in games with akuma-level imbalances. Which is unhelpful at best, since everyone will have a different opinion on what what a "balanced" game is and where it becomes imbalanced.