I think with age you realize that arguing isn't necessarily about converting somebody to your position immediately, but instead to embed your ideas into them, in the hope that some time they may recall them and come around to your position.
I ve made progress with my shit lib friend.
He doesnt like ambiguity grew up in a red neck house hold but lives in a blue city works as a policey wonk for a govermental agencey and suffers from a bais that the system works and trust in authority because he is part of the sytem.
He has kids and supports trans rights but when I push him surenders, he agrees that they tech overlords wish to use social media to manipulate people of course its to worship trump.
but when I frame his own experience to a narative it kinda works, his youngest son need tutoring and I explained the issues with education and I basically pointed out that the state mandates down to the minute how to run the class room on each subject, and it creates problems.
He engages in performative guilt that he can pay for extra schooling to teach his son what the schools dont do.
When I pointed out that you need the state to release the mandates and allow and trust the teacher to do their job, and just have a standard and consequences for not meeting those standards. This leaks through.
The meta though his that his career his reputation his money standing in his community and family have the pressure of libshittiery if he goes against that shit it doesnt benifit him.
So the correct way foward is to relate to lived experience and avoid any npc programing thought terminating language.