Each of us has our own style of preferred argument.
As with any "contest", be it a sporting event, intellectual discussion, or straight out war, "contest" assumes a basic "A vs. B" format.
In this format, strategy is implied.
As we each have our own preferred style, we each have our prefferred strategies and tactics for "winning". Even our definition of "winning" may be different. Some of us wish to "win over the enemy" while others simply seek to humiliate. Some may seek a reaction, i.e. "trolling". There are as many goals sought in a verbal contest or "argument" as there are styles of argumentation.
I agree with the "persuader" in that the goal of "winning" should be to convert an opponent to our mode of belief, however, there are some opponents I can analyze and identify as "WILL NOT EVER BE CONVINCED". Arguments with these intractable foes, although puerile, can be very enjoyable in a childish manner. Hence: Peurile. There are two very starkly contrasted definitions of "winning" for each of these two groups. I seek to prod the "fence sitters" towards my way of thinking. A person who develops a healthy attitude of simply questioning the validity of the anti-gun argument after a debate counts as a "win", as far as I'm concerned. The "dyed in the wool" gun control fanatic will never develop this attitude, therefore, the more I can simply humiliate this S#!TBAG, the better. Peurile, but fun. Call me an anti-gunner troll. That's fine. Childish, but true.
My personal method of argument is crafted, as all "strategies" should be. Cold hard logical facts seem to be a widely supported method. This may work for some, but as illustrated by the OP, many times "cold, hard facts" just don't penetrate an arbitrary, emotionally based opponent.
Anti-gunners won't be bothered by your useless "truth". What good is that?
It doesn't make them "FEEL" any better.
Feelings don't change quantifiable reality?
Well, phooooey on that! Who cares about your "reality" mumbo-jumbo? It's FEELINGS that count, remember?
So, I find the "cold, hard facts" based argument to be pointless. You cannot tactically "win" a contest using facts when your opponent DOES NOT CARE about facts. It becomes a verbal version of "Calvin Ball". Your "rules" do not apply. "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Therefore, I have developed my own personal "style" that I believe is effective against both of my "intended targets".
I love to ask "unanswerable" questions based on my opponent's own argument.
I define an "unanswerable question" as a question where the only logical conclusion is one that supports my argument and disredits my opponent's. The more glaringly OBVIOUS the only possible answer is, the better I like it.
FOR EXAMPLE:
I often hear the "Guns are bad! Only police officers should carry them." argument. I absolutely LOVE encountering this statement from an opponent. It allows me to ask why the police carry the darned things if guns are "bad".
"Well, the police need them for their protection!".
I will whittle away at this discrepancy until the complete dichotomy of why "guns are bad for human beings to defend themselves, but good for human beings to defend themselves" splits itself open.
It usually comes when my opponent points out how carrying a firearm is so dangerous because it can be taken away and used against me.
I then get them to double down on the entire "The criminals will only take it away from you". I get them to write this in stone. REINFORCE THIS IDEA as much as possible. Then....
I ask them, "Now, does this count when I'm in uniform, or just when I'm dressed in plain clothes?".
WATCH THE GEARS TURN.
But.....but......those guns are GOOD for cops, right? I thought cops were the only ones they were good for? Guns were a liability a moment ago. Now they're good? Did I suddenly become a different human being? Somehow, between the last sentence and this one, the gun that was so dangerous for me to have, instantly transformed into something dangerous for me to be without.
So, my opponent will inevitably begin stammering about how it's perfectly fine for me to carry. (They still don't grasp the mental disconnect they just experienced.)
So I'll get them to reinforce that seeing me carry a gun no longer bothers them.
"Are you sure you don't mind me carrying?"
Of course they don't. Only cops should have guns. I'm a cop, so they're suddenly perfectly fine with it. No problem, at all.
Oh, I never said "I was a cop.". I'm not a police officer. I just asked if they'd have a problem with me carrying while I'm "in uniform". I didn't say "a police officer's uniform".
Suddenly, that mental disconnect becomes the elephant in the room.
I guess they're no longer perfectly fine with it.
How is it that a gun keeps switching between "bad" and "good" without any change in the human being posessing it based solely upon "only police should have guns"?
Am I more safe, or less safe with a firearm?
Which is it?
They cannot offer a definitive answer when they're unsure of my employment. Keeping my occupation vaguely insinuated, but never completely affirmed in their mind beautifully illustrates this mental disconnect. When someone offers you a false dichotomy, blur the line between the false division and it becomes glaringly obvious when they can't identify the seperation of something that isn't seperate.
Hopefully, in the mind of the "fence sitter" it dispells, or at least helps to lessen the attractiveness of the "only the police should have guns" argument. It may cause someone who simply "feels" guns are bad to question that argument. "Well....maybe.......".
Someone committed, heart and soul, to the anti-gun cause will be caught in their own dilemma when their unassailable argument causes me to miraculously transpose from demon, to angel, back to demon......ang.......dem.........uhhhhhhhh? Hmmmm.
What a mental pickle they argued themselves into.
It's all in one's chosen tactic. What works for others might not for some. I'm happy having a diverse commmunity of individuals who employ a wide variety of argument strategies. A "tossed salad", if you will. This diversity is our strength, not the validity of each individual's style.
Now....go pick a (verbal) fight.