My personal experience has always been that fact checking fails with the more extreme cases -- in that it wins the argument but fails to win over the person. In fact, that kind of win often seems to "inoculate" the person against anything you have to say in the future.
When facts and logic fail, I usually fall back on the other two of the good old Greek trio: ethos, pathos and logos.
First you need to understand what feelings are driving these individuals. Usually it's fear and uncertainty. Until you address the root cause of those feelings (which usually differ from person to person), no amount of fact checking is going to have a permanent effect.
The other thing is to build mutual respect, even if you don't agree with the person. Branding someone an idiot is generally not considered a winning strategy when it comes to persuasion.
When facts and logic fail, I usually fall back on the other two of the good old Greek trio: ethos, pathos and logos.
First you need to understand what feelings are driving these individuals. Usually it's fear and uncertainty. Until you address the root cause of those feelings (which usually differ from person to person), no amount of fact checking is going to have a permanent effect.
The other thing is to build mutual respect, even if you don't agree with the person. Branding someone an idiot is generally not considered a winning strategy when it comes to persuasion.