An absurd argument posed by a friend about Star Trek.

My friend: "Lol saying ST is intellectually engaging is hilarious. Most of the episodes are clearly the product of writers who were forced to write too many episodes. It's intellectually dilute; you need patience to wade through the hours of garbage - space virus, space mcs, and holodeck episodes to name a few - before anyone is ever anywhere close to being intellectually engaged. ST scripts will not be read by future generations looking to be intellectually engaged by humanity's finest literature."

Here's my break down of it:
P1 - Lol saying ST is intellectually engaging is hilarious.
P2 - Most of the episodes are clearly the product of writers who were forced to write too many episodes.
P3 - It's intellectually dilute; you need patience to wade through the hours of garbage - space virus, space mcs, and holodeck episodes to name a few -
C - before anyone is ever anywhere close to being intellectually engaged. ST scripts will not be read by future generations looking to be intellectually engaged by humanity's finest literature.

What type of argument is this? My guess is inductive. I think the last sentence in the conclusion is a non sequitur, but still qualifies as a conclusion. Is my analysis correct? He claims this argument to be inductive as well. I need someone to thoroughly break it down and also point out which fallacies are committed so I can better understand it.

-Thanks, Dave

Dude it is so not an opinion that people can be broken down to atoms and "beamed up to Scotty", Problem is Scotty passed away and took the actual secret with him. Star Trek is extremely intelligent from the basis of it being extremely in the future where everyone is super intelligent, so much so there's no money. How could you possibly not like utopia with aliens "war mongers"? By the way, watch Voyager and when the borg woman shows up, you tell me if that body, ummm, I mean character isn't brilliant.....(cheek meet tongue)