This is going to be a long effort post looking at how conservatives argue against established facts and convince dunces to believe them. Note that this is a post that will be developed over time. As I get more ideas.

• Molehill mountaineering

The term "molehill mountaineering" was originally coined by Charlie Brooker to notice how media often makes ridiculously large scenes out of relatively small events. This is also possible in political discourse.

Conservatives use this constantly. The best example would be the recent due process debacle on college campuses in the US. While it is somewhat reasonable that the colleges who inflicted those violations change their ways, conservatives make a massive scene out of this, eclipsing the very real issue of sexual assault. Many claim "sexual assault is a serious problem" yet devote all their time on spurious claims about false rape accusations, even though this is minute in comparison to actual rape accusations. What they've done in practice is completely stall the debate about the seriousness of rape culture and created a red herring, even though said red herring is still a small problem.

Counter: This one is pretty to counter, but simply pointing out the problem is way overblown using statistics will do the trick.

• The semi-factual strawman

The semi-factual strawman is changing the opponent's position slightly in an almost unobservable way and parroting this as fact.

The quintessential example of this argumentation strategy is how conservatives "argue" against the wage gap. They take the famous slogan "equal pay for equal work" and assume that "women earn X cents on the man's dollar" means for the same work, only to then knock down the strawman with the same arguments used to compare the adjusted gap to the unadjusted gap. This completely omits the reality of occupational segregation and discrimination in promotions, which conservatives want to ignore because it will mean that affirmative action and an analysis of traditional gender roles will have to occur, something conservatives absolutely despise as it undermines the crux of their ideology (which isn't about freedom, it's about imposing traditional Protestant conservative morality, including the Protestant work ethic (an apology for capitalism) on everyone) and might mean Democrats might win.

Another more insidious example of this is how conservative "feminists" argue that toxic masculinity pathologizes boys and how real masculinity is good. While this clearly ignores the fact deeming certain traits useful for men is an ill in and of itself, it also completely misses the point about what toxic masculinity is, namely restrictive roles that hurt the men practicing them.

Counter: Argue on their terms and use a reductio ad absurdum. They argue the wage gap is caused by choices? Ask them what causes those choices. They argue masculinity is natural? Ask them why certain traits should be given to men and others to women.

• Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

This technique was developed by Microsoft and involved replicating another company's product, differentiating it slightly, and tanking the opponent.

In debate, it is used by conservative pundits to claim affinity with a certain group, arguing how said group is undermining something, and then tanking said group.

Everybody knows who this is: Christina Hoff Sommers. CHS made a fortune telling conservatives how she, as a feminist, disagrees with what feminism has become, which coincidentally is whatever progressives believe. She then uses whatever technique she needs to show how whatever she's arguing against is false, talks about how she's "the real feminist", and tanks feminism in the process.

Counter: Show how whichever feminist is not associated with feminism and how they don't stand for gender equality.

• Normalizing the Extremist

Everybody has seen this. "All SJW's are like this" "All feminists hate men"

This one isn't used very much anymore, though it sometimes finds its use in conservative media, where a certain group is deemed to be more extremist than they really are.

Counter: Obvious. Show how this is not the case.

• The Big Conspiracy

"Colleges are biased against conservatives" "The Liberal Media" "Cultural Marxism"

If there's one thing anti-feminists are good, it's at painting polite society as being irrationally biased against them. This is done to make it seem as if their points are being marginalized even though that's perfectly reasonable.

Counter: Show how academia has disproven their points. There's a reason nobody cares about them.

• Phony Plea to Equality

This one is the hardest to spot and the ones conservatives fall for the most. This can be best represented by any time an anti-feminist screams "what about the menz?". The best example are arguments about parity in domestic violence or rape. Another one would be Lauren Southern's famous argument "If feminism is about equality, why isn't 50% of the time devoted to men's issues". These same arguments about "equality of opportunity" also arise in affirmative action debates.

Counter: Show how feminism's definition of equality doesn't include theirs and why this is justified.