I think what helps in arguing with friends and family members is realizing that you don't have the pandering ideologically set far right influencer in front of you, but just a regular human being, even though they may on a surface level peddle the same beliefs.

The far right has been in the offense more than anything, people will have heard of certain obvious far right talking points, yet do not have a consolidated ideological opinion from which that point emerges, but rather have that point thrown into a mess of ideology soup with little to no coherency.

Even though you will have the urge to debate that specific point, someone with little media literacy who doesn't believe news organizations lie to them, will have a hard time understanding why that point is so important to you. You will recognize that argument as part of a larger far right narrative, they don't. That's both dangerous and offers a huge opportunity.

I often redirect that rightful anger towards rightful targets instead of debating why that specific, often culture war related argument, is wrong. You can derive why it's wrong from there later, but initially that isn't important (unless that's the debate at hand). By offering your belief as an extension to theirs, as the logical conclusion with simply one thought further, it'll be much more easily accepted by the person you're arguing with than if you position your view as opposing theirs. Showing opposition is important if you're arguing against some far right pundit, it isn't important if you're arguing with friends and family.