I am looking at the psychology behind some of their untenable positions being used argued against individual liberty and freedom.
The arguments are emotional, not intellectual, more superstition than fact.
People don't like seeing their truth, so you have to find the right mirror to show them their selves, but without beating them up with it or with "your" truth.
There's always loving way to give those people the metaphorical slap upside the head they need, but it takes the right mindset/heartset and understanding to find it and then a careful delivery.
Ancillary, anecdotal, glib arguments don’t focus on logic, they distract and lead to ambiguity...