Here is a list of claims that Q devotees frequently make to defend their belief system. And here is the corresponding debunk. Feel free to add more.
Q predicted this.
'Q' uses the same tactics that false prophets and psychics have been using for who knows how long. His 'drops' almost exclusively consist of the following:
Vague statements that could apply to a wide variety of events
Predictions and vague statements based on what's currently in the news (and in most cases things others are predicting)
'Drops' using words and phrases that Trump often uses so that followers can claim that Q's sending a message next time Trump uses it
Claims that his team is working behind the scenes or otherwise falsifiable (can't be proven right or wrong but gives his followers the impression that something is happening even though it isn't)
Cheerleading his devotees
Memes and links to news stories with commentary
Predictions with a far-off or non-existent 'happening date' to keep followers focused on something
Predictions that were wrong
Q uses intentionally vague language and occasionally states falsities to throw the Deep State off his trail.
Given the massive amount of knowledge that Q claims to have/is attributed to him, there would only be a handful of people who would match Q's identity. It doesn't matter how many 'false claims' Q 'drops'; the Deep State would be able to identify him just by the amount of information that he's privy to. Additionally, the 'false drops' explanation is just a way for Q and his followers to keep people trapped in the narrative. 'Oh, this prediction didn't come true, but that's because Q is trying to throw the Deep State off.' 'Oh, this prediction didn't come true, but that's because Q is trying to throw the deep state off.' It is a way to keep the devotees hooked despite failed prediction after failed prediction.
No Coincidences.
Humans are incredibly good at connecting concepts. It allows us to draw accurate conclusions, and exercise creativity. However, being good at making connections in the context of analysis also means being able to prune weak or tenuous connections that make the analysis less accurate. Ascribing to 'No Coincidences' effectively means that you're forcing your brain to keep every connection you draw between this or that. You are essentially making any link between concepts that you can and concluding that your link is strong/accurate by virtue of the fact that it's a link. If you want to see how silly it seems to an onlooker, try applying 'No Coincidences' to something that's apolitical (e.g. a day spending time with your family) or imagine that there's a conspiracy about the Trump admin doing the same things that the Deep State is doing and follow 'No Coincidences'.