I really can't say I've had the same experience. He seems to use the standard impossible-to-converse-with tactics of only listening to other viewpoints for the sole purpose of collecting more ammunition for future arguments. Maybe you're simply seeing him agree with you and re-wording his arguments to be a bit more clear rather than actually admitting faults and changing perspectives, although maybe it just happens so rarely that I haven't seen it. We don't talk too much, after all.
I would be very careful mistaking eloquence with a lack of emotional arguments, though. You can say "fuck this shithead!" or you can write a paragraph of how you respectfully disagree with their opinion- sure, one is a lot preferable to the other for the sake of polite discourse, but both of those people are capable of being just as emotionally-based when they make their statements. It's simply a lot harder to notice when they're written more politely, I guess you could say.
also, as an add-on: There is no such thing as "no go zones" in Sweden. There are some shit, low-income areas that need some more police attention and such, though.
My question to you, and to all who believe that propaganda line, is this- what country is without terrible, low income, high crime rate areas? I'm sure every city in the world has some places like that, never mind entire countries. The fact that Sweden is specifically attacked is INCREDIBLY vitriolic and it sickens me to see that kind of thing cited as evidence of anything. There's a case to be made for refugees' failure to integrate, but the arguments are almost never made in a fair manner, instead trying to use Sweden as some big example of how refugees ruin everything and/or how Swedish welfare is "delusional" or whatever other stupidity they're trying to push.