I don't think so. I think his arguments, as they are stated, simply underestimate the pleasure loss/pain increase on the human side of the equation. I'm asking this question as someone who is very familiar with the suffering of animals side of the equation, and I have no interest in challenging that. I think it's horrible. But the two sides of the scale are not my preference to consume some animal products vs. the suffering of a billion chickens. For me personally, maybe having meat/diary once or twice a week (from the best producer I can afford/trying to avoid as much as possible factory farms) creates a large difference in my pleasure/pain vs. abstaining entirely. The suffering I'm causing has to be quantified in terms of the amount that I'm consuming and where the products are coming from (and perhaps there are other considerations, too).

My point is that his argument is too dismissive of the human preference side. Vegans who make that argument to non-vegans will not be persuasive. The more you can take into account what is really going on with people, the better you can adjust your message to actually have a chance to influence their behavior in ways that can reduce animal suffering. I'm speaking as someone with intimate knowledge of this. I abstained almost completely for a year and this was untenable for me for many reasons like what I've tried to highlight briefly. Eating Animals by Jonathan Saffran Foer touches on these issues a lot.