Prager would appear to be the poster child for the tactic of accusing your opponents of all of your own worst crimes and shortcomings so people won't see them in you - because they're looking the other direction.

And of course he's opposed to people going to (non-religious) universities, and therefore spends a lot of time badmouthing them: that's where people get equipped with the tools for dismantling and refuting his constant stream of lies and mischaracterizations.

Prager frames everything in terms of his moral opposition to it, and makes the blanket statement that what he's against is evil. Everyone can easily agree that they are opposed to evil, but he does absolutely nothing to prove that anything he so labels is actually evil or even bad in the slightest degree. Much like Joseph McCarthy's calling people "identified communists" because he himself called them such. And people fell for it because he spoke with a sense of confidence and authority, and he was good at stroking their fears.