You're not refuting his point... you're demonstrating it.
Every objective measure of society is better today than at any time in the past, and yet we have people calling for curtailing a core American value due to a supposed social emergency. These demoralized people need a hard reality check because there's nothing fact-based about the way they think or behave.
There are orders of magnitude more educated people in the world today than ever before. Development of technology is rapidly accelerating. The idea that we can't solve our problems without sacrificing our souls is just pathetic and historically un-American.
I am having trouble following your jump from shutting down trolls to sacrificing our souls. If you think the loudest person should get a platform, I encourage you to spend some more time in (non-HN) comment sections.
You say you want to shutdown "trolls" but you surely also want to modify the definition of troll on an on-going basis.
The pessimists think they can't win on ideas alone so they resort to using force against the "trolls" to ensure victory. Harassing, deplatforming, doxing, getting them fired, boycotting, etc.
The optimists (see: MLK Jr.) know humans are pretty great and, given sufficient time and information, the good ideas will win eventually.
If you actually care about your society you should be engaging "trolls" and trying to understand them. And you should be trying to convince them they're wrong, if you can. And if you can't, you should look to others that can.
Let me be even more blunt: I suspect what you really mean is simply that people who disagree with you should be shut up.
Let me be a bit philosophical: Unless you are so arrogant as to believe that you are right about everything right now, the set of people you believe should shut up includes both your future and past self.
Perhaps you should accord to others the rights you are so anxious to claim for yourself.
I think that we can collectively come to a reasonable agreement about what should and should not pass as discourse vs. plain trollery. If someone is parroting "facts" about Barack Obama's secret Kenyan birth and closed door Muslim religion, all of which have been refuted, and cannot offer a standard of evidence that would be sufficient to change their mind, they aren't engaging in a debate, they are simply spreading a lie. That lie, and many others like it, have recently shown the ability to propagate propelled solely by regular repetition. Is censorship the only way to provide a pattern interrupt? I don't really know, but I do know that it is TERRIBLE for a democratic and free society to have huge portions of the population very certain about opinions that are totally, demonstrable false, not to mention that these same opinions also incline these people to be less tolerant, less trusting, and more aggressive. I don't think we should rule out some level of censorship, at least at the interpersonal level, for thoroughly refuted ideas. I'm not saying we should have government intervention, I'm just arguing that you should have every right to tell your angry, misinformed uncle to stop spreading lies at the dinner table.
On a personal level, my own standard is that you earn the right to have a discourse by being willing to let go of your viewpoint if it's refuted, in fact that's part of why you are entering into a conversation - to learn what you are wrong about. Strong beliefs, lightly held. The right to speak comes with a responsibility to engage honestly.