The project I've been quietly working on now has its second iteration, better than ever: https://www.howtruthful.com/

I'm eager to talk about it, but won't be able to during the workday today. Try it out. Comment and I'll answer tonight.

The video linked from the link above can be watched at 2x speed if you only want to get the gist. If you do that and stop at the how-to-use part, it's only 4 minutes. Watching the entire video at regular speed is 12 minutes, but since this is different from things you've already seen, that might be 12 minutes well spent.
 

The best path forward might be for @DPiepgrass to make a prototype or mockup, borrowing ideas from HowTruthful and then discussing from there.

I don't think 11 needs to be a community value. If someone comes in believing in the supernatural, in cryptozoology, UFOs, P = NP, or other ideas that haven't been scientifically verified, who cares as long as they're interested in changing their way of modeling the world to be more evidence-based?

Sympathize with them, but also with those affected by them.

I strongly upvoted this post because I believe epistemic empathy is important.

The word "irrational" has too many meanings, and I try to avoid it. And I try to direct criticism at arguments rather than people. But I do want to answer your final question as best I can. I'll just phrase it as problems with arguments rather than people's irrationality.

In my experience, the problem with arguments against COVID-19 vaccines is that they mainly consist of evidence that there's risk involved in getting vaccinated. To usefully argue against getting vaccinated, one needs evidence not only that vaccine risks exist, but that they're worse risks than those of remaining unvaccinated.

Similarly, arguments against masks are usually arguing against the wrong statement. They argue against "Masks always prevent transmission", when to be useful, they should be arguing against "Masks reduce transmission". 

Good points are made in other comments about the significance of weakest bonds, but mostly I want to say that I like this post because it's making a clear point with clear reasoning, and was very readable.

Are you really insulating from reality, or from recency bias?

Agreed there's a lot of work ahead in making it engaging.

I define "pro" as anything one might say in defense of a statement, and that includes decomposing it. It can also include disambiguating it. Or citing a source.

Thanks for the well-wishes. Only two paid users so far, but I'm getting very useful feedback and will have a second iteration with key improvements.