In my debates with feminists there are generally two avenues of argument, the emotional issues and the slam dunks. Emotional issues involve anything that intesects with womens issues, especially on an emotional level. Slam dunks are things that basically prove the existence of male issues and dodge inciting anger in the average feminist and the usual 'patriarchy' dismissals.

Not to tone police, but when engaging in debate all too often MRA's pull out the emotional issues. And we don't pull them out because they are good, but because that is what is being talked about. And they are being talked about because that's what feminists are talking about. And they talk about them because they are issues that it's impossible to debate because they are so emotionally charged. Even winning a debate contributes to the loss of the war, as it puts that issue front and centre of the discussion over everything else.

For example when talking about circumcision I've said 'Heather Hironimus's son died' simply as bait, leading to the feminists to 'win' the argument by pointing out that he was actually ordered to be forcibly circumcised by a court, not died. That's what happens in too many MRA debates. "I've proved you wrong, men don't oppress women nearly as much as you say!". The faulty statistics just act as bait to generate endless arguments, which serve to 'prove' the existence of the problem and deflect away from the real, non controversial, issues. Don't take the bait.

We have a large selection of weaponry at our disposal yet we keep pulling the butterknifes out of the drawer, because that's what the feminists are talking about. We should instead go for whatever is the biggest and most effective. Sun Tsu covered this quite well, you try to fight on the ground of your choosing against the point where your enemy is weakest.

Take the circumcision thing. There's always talk of 'bodily integrity' and 'loss of sensation'. No. The only argument that's needed is 'Circumcision Kills Babies'. It's the male version of the feminist playing the 'I was assaulted' card. It's impossibly to come back from. Go with the strongest argument. Don't present a bunch of them as then the discussion will be about the weakest. There is no point back-and-forthing about 'is loss of sensation a thing' when you can just play the dead baby card.

If you want to win the debate don't fight on ground that you didn't choose. For example if the discussion is about the gender wage gap point out that it is largely due to women choosing lesser paying degrees, throw out some bait and then switch the whole thing to a discussion of the education gender gap where women account for nearly 2/3rds of the student body so the idea that 'it's patriarchy' is ridiculous. And if possibly make them bring it up by getting them to assert that 'more women are needed to be encouraged to take x subject'.

In fact swinging everything to the education gender gap if you can is generally the best thing you can do as it easily demonstrates that despite protestations of 'feminism is about equality', women account for the most degrees, virtually all the gendered affirmative action, and virtually all the institutional power. Any counter argument is tenuous at best and the whole thing acts as a case study in to why the MRM is necessary and why feminism is (provably) not about helping boys.

It's very easy to make the feminist position look ridiculous, callous and selfish. You just need to not get drawn in to emotional issues where you can only lose and instead just change the subject.

tl:dr; Stop taking the bait!

This is advice btw so feel free to ignore it. It's just what I think.