Put it into religious terms. Most of these pukes have been pump-primed to reject religion right off the bat, so you're cutting with the grain if you position these shits as pseudoscientific hully-gully men. Argue from an intentional or power-grabbing point of view.
Basically, evil men in every age will invent whatever mumbo-jumbo will trick people into giving them money, power, sex, tenure, whatever. The Frankfurt School was exactly that – the old Marxist/Stalinist horseshit that had been getting professors laid since 1917 wasn't cutting it anymore, and co-eds in 1937 Germany didn't get wet over rebellious professors who supported the status quo, and political Catholicism wasn't trendy in Germany at the time, so a handful of crafty Jews professors cooked up some impressive-sounding gibberish. A generation later, and it would have been Orgone energy and Dianetics.
Once you've imputed their motives, criticize their expertise. Point out that a whole shit-ton of CM's basic axioms are drawn directly from every Jewish bad idea of the previous century: Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, dialectical materialism, etc. I'm sad to say this stage of the debunking takes research. Not a hell of a lot – most CMs don't know shit about what they believe either – but you should know at least what currents fed into the whole mess and why they're retarded.
If you're still talking, attack the integrity of the "discipline's" leading figures. You don't need to be rigorous here, any old faculty gossip will do the trick. Shit, make something up if you want. Adorno was a rapist and a wife-beater, after all. Actually not, but you see how easy slandering the dead can be? Anything to tarnish their images. Better still, if you're lying about their sex lives, even the commie professor won't have heard about the accusations and will have to admit that beating your wife and raping a grad student is a little bit bad.
Finish with the missionary's oldest trick: give them hope. Explain that, while CM wasn't 100% wrong still lying for the greater good, "much better models have been developed" in the 1970s and '90s (don't mention the '1980s; it triggers campus lefties) by [insert random string of obscure academics nobody has ever heard of and will never check out for themselves].
Propose they look into Pan-Zionism and the history of the Shev Collective. I just made those up, but it sure sounds as if some serious brain power was being applied, right? Tell the 19-year-old college girl you're trying to convert that these "powerful social observers" worked out a model for maximizing equality among disparate groups by allowing free association and limited free-market economics with gender and racial equality, unlike those racist Germans from Frankfurt. Point your target toward ethno-nationalism as baby's first redpill, and mention non-white examples of how it would have been for the best. Hutus vs. Tutsis is a good start, as is the Israel vs. Palestine question (pretend you give a shit about the Arabs and Jews both). Guide the girl toward a consciousness that groups were never meant to live on top of one another and we're at our most diverse when we're living in our own homelands – ideally on different continents.
Then try to slip her the dick. Girls around that age have low self-esteem, and they tend to wrap themselves around the men they're fucking. That can be you, user. Name your first white child after Holla Forums.
