The peoples I find on places such as these that have dislike of HHDL to my experience they usually have a political or political agenda problem.
This I think is to be expected. Differing political leaning different theories of government economic, these can all lead to dislike.
That is my personal experience and a normal thing, not to much to get excited about.
HHDL in fact speaks highly of the logic and use of such in Tibetan Buddhism. I could with a little bit of work provide such quotes from his written materials. So I would expect that would not be a sole basis for dislike.
However the crux of the issue remains....we do not really know why this person says that.
Till that is found out it is not a solveable problem.
If he says Tibetan Buddhism is not a proper vehicle for enlightenment, something of that sort, that is a world of difference than simply stateing he doesn't like HHDL. A political or spiritual basis must be identified. AFter that a furthur identification of the specific must also be identified, the aspect of this that he considers wrong or improper.
Debate or discussions basis is not to kick butt or some such thing but really to effectively communicate ideas. Its basis is exchange. Successfully done one may claim furthuring point or substantiating point successfully, or not. Really the process of discussion or debate itself may be quite instructional regardless of perceived outcome. Outcome in this type of forum is really not so important as few read entire threads and many don't read even entire posts.
So any victory or loss in such a climate is hallow with not much merit to my opinion.
So I personally would ask this person. If it is only a political basis or a personal issue(past occurance) nothing may be done.
If spiritual....I agree it may be only a educated response that may be appropriate, depending on context.
But at this point it seems not much is definitively known.
For a person to make such claims ususally indicates they are not rational or logical in the specific. So their claims upon inspection are usually easily found to be not those popular to be held by others. So a basic defense is quite often best served in one manner....having them explain what they mean in depth.
Their words will stand for themselves, and all may see them for what they are, founded or unfounded.
I cannot see a person worthy of debating making such a statement personally.
Overtly stupid people should generally to my opinion not be debated with. It seems to fall into the catagory of wasted or defiled speach to my opinion.
They should be left alone to say what they will,it doesn't matter at all.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.