Because all persuasive essays are "unbalanced" and it cites a number of reputable sources? Because its argument is compelling, clearly stated, and its author clearly has no vested interest in the argument apart from his professional focus on public policy? Because limiting one's reading diet to "balanced views" will almost certainly foreclose most interesting writing on subjects of controversy?

If you stated reasons for your opinion instead of saying, there's a robust debate, and plenty of reason for there to be a debate, and let's be charitable, there's a debate, and did you see this correlation, and why don't you suffer the experience of reading this essay, written by a journalist hack to persuade Vox-reading plebes with a shoestring of an argument, then you'll understand, maybe you'd be a bit more persuasive.

Edit: Here are some citations to support my argument. Read all these and come back when you're done:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

[3] https://panasonic.jp/cns/pc/products/sv8c/

It's a strange assumption that a "balanced view" can't possibly be critical.