Suspected logical fallacies in debate: "Hard Facts, Raw Video and Statistics", "Appeal to motive", "Appeal to authority" and so much more

I was debating a self described American neo conservative/libertarian with a few other people (or what he called it a neolibertarian, from what I found online, neolibertarianism is a combo of libertarian ideology with neo conservative elements) with America over the issue of political opinions of American universities, specifically the question on whether conservative students were being pushed out of colleges and universities, sometimes by force.

After posting a video that stated that there was someone behind the Social Justice Warriors, a well known boogeyman for the American Right, and how the American university is turning into a so called "leftist" echochamber, which is here, added with his comment:

I encourage everyone to just take a few minutes and watch this video. It's excellent.

I responded by saying it sounded like the video was conspiracy flinging. He replied with this:

Not conspiracy flinging in the slightest, its all based on hard facts and data. I know its unnerving but its really the state of things in the states. Also not sure what "conspiracy" this would be pushing anyways.

I replied with what I saw, which was the implication that the boogeyman left is taking over universities for anti conservative agenda. To which he said in a long winded mini essay:

It is clear you either did not fully watch, or simply did not understand the video. That's not what its claiming at all. Nowhere does it claim that a "conspiracy" is underway...

I said it was literal garbage, to paraphrase because I used terms, and got this as a reply:

It is documented. Literally documented. As Corr can attest, the Evergreen State College is a perfect example. The Multiple Riots at Berkely preventing Conservatives and even Libertarians from speaking. Extensive property damage. Demands from black students at American University for a "Black only" section of campus.

The list goes on and on.

Death threats against conservative students and speech codes.

Even sensible people on the left have been targeted, as [friend] points out.

When there is a documented 3 to 1 Marxist v Conservative professorial distribution in Social Science departments, something is extremely extremely wrong.

"About 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists, compared to only about 5 percent who identify as conservatives"

Almost 4 to 1.

Many colleges have become echo chambers that essentially push students into leftism.
"If you've spent time in a college or university any time in the past quarter-century you probably aren't surprised to hear that professors have become strikingly more liberal. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as "liberal" or "far-left." By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent. Over the same period, the number of academics identifying as "moderate" fell by 13 percentage points, and the share of "conservative" and "far-right" professors dropped nearly six points. In the academy, liberals now outnumber conservatives by roughly 5 to 1. Among the general public, on the other hand, conservatives are considerably more prevalent than liberals and have been for some time."

As for sourcing that is the Washington Post.

You can't just disagree with data because you don't like it.

By this point, it was clear he had an agenda on about what he calls "radical leftism", and I called him out on the incrediuity of what he is proposing. I suspected he was trying to lure me in by using the sources of his statistics he was claiming to say that it was not a fallacy, and I have a hard time believing that myself.

He went on more, first by posting a series of videos, here<>, here<> and here<>, and said this about them. From what he said, I think he is citing the incident at Evergreen State College in Washington to prove his argument.

I have a good supercut source.

Lots of vid from the takeover. Provides context as well. The guy who made this is extremely moderate as well, though that shouldn't even be an issue with raw vid anyways. For maximum outrage, watch all 3. It doesn't get anymore clear cut than that. 4:25 "The people of color in this room are afraid for their lives."

Like, Boi.

I'm not sure where you're not understanding.

Some of the other people came in at this point, saying this:

Watch at least some of the videos.
There is no "conspriacy theory" going on here.
Some are literal statistics.

I responded to that thing by saying not all statistics are infalliable, and asked for a source. The neolib then posted this:

Survey was conducted among nationwide college professors, who self reported their political persuasion and affiliation. Doesn't get more simple than that. If you choose to disbelieve, that's your fault not the facts'.

Then I asked for a source on if a personal belief can influence students in a public setting. Got this:

To say that they don't would be asinine, especially when they are instructing their students on how to think critically, or in the case of marxists, to think without question. The Primary School level is different. But in College, professors often impart personal beliefs onto their students. That much is obvious.

Then I tried to search up sources to prove his claim and found very little. I responded that I cannot find any sources to back what he said, and wondered how can professors can impart their personal beliefs onto students. Got this:

Do you honestly not believe that a Professor who is a devoted Marxist is going to impart a marxist ideological view on his students? A 4-year education in social justice almost inevitably leads to leftism in those impressionable students being taught said garbage.

I yet again responded that I found no such source proving his claim. He responded with:

Common sense is a pretty good source.
That teachers have an effect on their students seems pretty obvious. A settled issue. The only question then, as evidenced by sources, is whether teachers should actively offer their political opinions or not. The idea that people who are tasked with teaching do not impart anything on their pupils is pretty off to me.

Then a posted a Guardian article, here<>, and got a response, not about the content of the evidence, but about the source:

2008 America is not 2016 America for one.
The Guardian is not particularly reputable in my eyes either, but that's besides the point.

And that was the end of the debate.

I apologise profusely if I bring in tons of politics into this thing, but this entire thing is a logical fallacy trainwreck from what I am seeing. I have trouble deciphering the whole thing still.

Any help in listing what is going on?

It is difficult to pin point any fallacies here because there is a lot of paraphrasing going on. But based on the text in this post, here are a few thoughts:

• In the first minute of the video, the narrator asks "who mobilized all these students..." which certainly suggest that there is someone who mobilized the students, thus suggesting some conspiracy.
  If you asked for a source of statistics, they should have provided one. Otherwise, credibility goes downhill.
  There are some claims/opinions that don't require references. For example, "But in College, professors often impart personal beliefs onto their students. That much is obvious." This can be taken as opinion—one that has merit, especially with qualifiers such as "often."

Perhaps some others here might offer some ideas.