Look up ‘sealioning’, ‘ad hominem’, ‘Chewbacca defense’ for starters. You will see these techniques show up quite often in bad-faith debates. You’ll also see a lot of goalpost-moving and general logical fallacies.

If you want to see it in action, watch videos of Charlie Kirk’s ‘debates’; he uses all of these to ‘question’ in bad faith—in other words, not to learn things, but to prove himself right at any cost. For a good analysis video of common right-wing behavior of this style, watch The Card Says Moops by The Alt-Right Playbook.

What I do is call out the bad-faith technique they’re doing in my response. If they try to move the goalposts (the ‘gish gallop’ technique is the speedrun version of this), I pull the goalposts back. It isn’t enough to point out the fallacies in the arguement; you also need to point out how they’re using bad-faith techniques too, so people who don’t have as much debate literacy can learn what patterns to look for, not just what answers.

EDIT: For an easy start, there’s actually a very clumsy attempt at a bad-faith argument in this thread

They make a false equivalence argument, where they try to equate removal of religious symbols from classrooms with the removal of religious names people have in an attempt to discredit the idea of keeping religious iconography out of schools.

If it were obvious from a single example, it wouldn't work. The goal of bad faith discussion is to make the other party engage in good faith, and they won't do that unless they think you're also acting in good faith. Once they're engaging, you can do things like waste loads of their time (it takes much less time to spout some dumb bullshit than explain why it's dumb bullshit), persuade bystanders that you're right by arguing with more logical fallacies and unreliable sources than they can point out, and make it look like they're being unreasonable by sealioning.

"I'm just asking the question" has become popular with various groups that don't have counter-facts. Instead, they couch statements as questions or use them to chip away at opposing, reasonable arguments. No answer to the question (other than the one they intended) will ever be accepted, and facts will just raise more questions or moved goalposts. Then, when these people finally get shut down or yelled at for being jackasses, they claim persecution.

It was a VERY popular tactic with anti-vaxxers or pro-Russians on social media before Facebook etc became mostly a bot-populated desert.