This is the way. You don't even have to argue, it's usually enough to confidently note that you disagree with the points being made. In a group setting, that's all it takes to prevent a false impression of consensus from emerging. In private settings, it can plant that seed of doubt.
Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly context you can say it's not worth arguing about, in a more adversarial context you can let the other person know you have no obligation to engage.
Take a note from the people who deprogram extremists or cult members. You won't get far if you argue with the person all the time, nor if you pretend they're right. You confidently tell them they're wrong on this one, make it clear this doesn't affect your opinion of them as a human being, and change the topic to something friendly. They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you.
> They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you
Realizing this works wonders. Often it’s enough to politely point out one or two factual errors. “I’m not invested enough in the topic to argue on it, but I do know that X is factually incorrect.” It’s non-confrontational, so it doesn’t put people on the defense. Plus it gives them a thread to pick at to unravel the inconsistencies with their own reasoning.
Very rarely will anyone push you to justify your disagreement, and you absolutely don't need to engage if they do. In a friendly context you can say it's not worth arguing about, in a more adversarial context you can let the other person know you have no obligation to engage.
Take a note from the people who deprogram extremists or cult members. You won't get far if you argue with the person all the time, nor if you pretend they're right. You confidently tell them they're wrong on this one, make it clear this doesn't affect your opinion of them as a human being, and change the topic to something friendly. They have enough self-doubt to do the rest for you.