This is the kind of argumentative writing I used to show my students when they wrote essays. It doesn't argue against a strawman, but instead demonstrates that even the most charitable interpretation of the opponent's argument won't stand up to scrutiny, even if some of the opponent's more contentious premises are assumed to be true.
For example:
Zillow's terms of use are unenforceable because they are browsewrap agreements, but even if Wagner had agreed to the terms of use, they would still be unenforceable because they contain unconscionable clauses in several different places.
Zillow doesn't hold a copyright to the photos, but even if they did, Wagner would be protected by a fair use defense.
I have no idea how a judge would rule in this case, but this is definitely good persuasive writing.
As someone who listened to quite a lot of court cases (did you know that the Ninth Circuit has a YouTube channel?), it's quite common for judges to ask "if we rule that your argument X is invalid, do you lose?", giving the opportunity for lawyers to make that kind of alternative argument.
For example:
Zillow's terms of use are unenforceable because they are browsewrap agreements, but even if Wagner had agreed to the terms of use, they would still be unenforceable because they contain unconscionable clauses in several different places.
Zillow doesn't hold a copyright to the photos, but even if they did, Wagner would be protected by a fair use defense.
I have no idea how a judge would rule in this case, but this is definitely good persuasive writing.