How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Angrboda]

But you cannot show that the premise doesn't apply to god, you can only claim it.  By that reasoning, we can exempt the universe from premise one by claiming that it has always existed in some form.  Presto, the first cause argument is broken.

Sure that would negate the first cause argument, but if an argument was shown that the universe began to exist, then the argument becomes sound.  If the universe didn't begin to exist, then this argument is not sound. However, I've shown arguments that the argument is sound. I also made the following argument in the past:

An effect needs a cause.
A series of cause and effect is an effect itself.
An infinite series of cause and effect is a series of cause and effect.
Therefore it needs a cause.
Infinite series of effect by definition doesn't require a cause.
Therefore it's a paradox.
Therefore infinite series of effect is impossible as it's paradoxical.

This shows non-effect, non-caused cause created all effects.

Well, it shows that you don't understand the nature of paradox. Just because it's paradoxical doesn't mean it's false.

The problem is not these arguments are not sound and proven by reason.  The problem is people can deny the most obvious truths. For example, someone stated they believe that everything began from nothing and came from nothing.

When we deny knowledge we been given and that is part of "reason", then sure, we can deny proofs of a Creator or God. But with submissive hearts to the truth, everything becomes easy.

In order to get from the Kalam argument as stated to God, you have to show that the number of uncaused causes is non-zero. If you can't do that, then somewhere along the line from the original argument on the way to 'God' you commit the existential fallacy of reasoning from an empty set as if it were not an empty set. That invalidates the entire train of logic. There are numerous other errors in Kalam, but this error suffices to derail the whole thing. (If you can show that the number of uncaused causes is non-zero, then that demonstration makes this one superfluous, so that case need not be handled.)

One of the main problems of the cosmological argument is the reliance on an intuitive notion of the meaning of the term 'cause'. Can you answer the question of "What is a cause?" without going in a circle or leaving other terms undefined? Quantum entanglement is a form of cause and effect, yet it defies our intuitive sense of the meaning of cause; this shows that our concept of cause is inadequate. Therefore, any premise that includes the notion of 'cause' is incompletely defined. An incompletely defined premise cannot be declared sound; that's nonsense. An incompletely defined premise has no meaning, and you can't draw conclusions from meaningless statements. (See also Hume's analysis of cause and effect for another example of why our understanding of the nature of 'cause' is incomplete.)