Here's something that may be unknown to some.
There's a pretty famous scene (along the lines of the Brawndo debate from Idiocracy) in Billy Madison where a the moderator of a quiz gives the ultimate smackdown to Billy Madison. What a vicious, complete denunciation that guy gives out - and in a perfect tone of voice. Ouch.
What less people are probably aware of (Billy Madison wasn't the most popular of Sandler's movies, as far as I know) is that, immediately before that smackdown, the crowd's reaction to Billy's speech is shown.
He received completely enthusiastic, uproarious applause.
Now, this is all fictional. But it helps illustrate why I say I have zero surprise when I read about how progressives are reacting to this or that bit of evidence or political discovery with arguments and claims that are absolutely, positively absurd, contradictory, or even stupid on examination. Because in a way, it really doesn't matter. The only reason it mattered for Billy is because a moderator with integrity was in control. If that same guy were simply part of the crowd, he would have been overwhelmingly drowned out. If the goal was persuasion rather than 'making sense' or 'giving a good argument', Billy would have won.
In politics, there's typically no moderators except self-moderation.
Exactly how abundant do you find that to be?
The point is that responding to progressives of this type by taking their arguments apart and showing where they fail - if the goal is to convince said progressives they are wrong - won't work. You're playing a different game than they are, and there's a good chance they're not even listening to you.
You need another way, if that's your goal.