Strawman.
> nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper.
Did you mean "first paper that introduces a concept."? In any event, also a strawman.
> Maybe those papers are not well written.
Hypothetical. (Have you read the papers? I've read some and I would say they are well-written.)
> Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc.
Wonderful! Should still cite prior work.
> So no, he does not have to be cited just because.
Strawman.
If you're going to argue at least do it well.
The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong.
I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.