(2) If something isn't bulletproof, it's none of his arguments.
(3) His neck wasn't bulletproof and none of his arguments.
This is evidence supporting the notion that all his arguments are bulletproof. This conclusion seems paradoxical because it implies that information has been gained about his arguments by looking at his neck.
More info about this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
Btw. I challenge the statement in the picture and deduce that (2) is wrong, too.
Which leads me to lean on (3) as the main message.
Thank you for your attention to the matter.