SkepArgu

Mostly about presenting a front of moral superiority while trying to use relatively peripheral disagreements to cast doubt on the central position of your idea: that whites made Western Civ, other groups cannot maintain it, that genetic differences inform this fact and can't be concealed, and that identity politics are nothing more then innate tribalism applied to politics and can't be changed. The ultimate conclusion being that promoting diversity or even being agnostic about race will crater attempts to build a prosperous society once it progresses enough

They want to kite you away from this

The added twist being that, as with conservatives, only whites really care about their liberal values to any sufficient degree. Without whites these cultural fixtures and institutions will be hollow and ready for removal. Just like the Constitution will be a piece of paper without a populace which holds the same values that made it.

1. Glib gotchas about vagaries of certain issues, regardless of the 'spirit of the issue'

2. Asserting solutions without any reason to think they're sufficient or possible, particularly on race and racial tension, when the burden of proof is on them, and not defining their terms

3. False equivalencies. Not an argument, just a way to dismiss

4. Strawmen. Usually a more extreme, simple, and less careful version. Sometimes even swapping why we were arguing a point as if it was justifying something it wasn't ever justifying then attacking it as a flimsy justification ("IQ differences dont justify whites only" or "founding fathers didnt think slavs should come over so they dont justify your white nationalism" well both arguments were counter-arguments to priors impeding white nationalism. Racial injustice and pretending America was destined for diversity)

These are about tripping you up and putting you on the defensive rather than disputing what you say or justifying what they say