Each argument has a different "best" response. In a pre-arranged debate, obviously the outcome depends on which party can best present their data, using emotional appeals as sparingly as possible in favour of other persuasive techniques. Any other situation is almost certain to be completely different when both sides are arguing a case. If you're getting into an argument with somebody over the internet or in person, generally the person standing their ground isn't going to convince others to see their view; so much as get shit flung at them for refusing to change their mind, regardless of their argument being based in data or emotion. We're kind of toxic that way. Honestly it's normally of little consequence to me whether i win most of my arguments or not. If I see things are going south I tend to just humour the other people. It's not worth my time when each of my posts are just going to be even longer than the last as I repeat myself ad verbatim, to some guy ignoring the argument altogether and sharing knowyourfallacy links in the complete wrong context while messaging his friends to manipulate the karma of each post just so he can look cool. TL;DR: It's not really worth it. Most people have their minds made up about the issues worth arguing about anyway, and trying to convince somebody their views are wrong turns them into an extremely rude person, regardless of the accuracy of your data.