The winner and loser of most arguments are determined by other people, despite the facts or opinion that the ones arguing may have. The arguments not decided by an outside party (in most cases) are the arguments that often lead to violence, slander, and the works of immorality, in which case a clear winner is usually decided, mostly out of fear, death or embarasment. At least until the law catches up, if it got that bad. Point is, individual opinions rarely matter in arguments these days. The majority or the power usually decides the winners and losers. And a lot of times time tells who really won and lost, so it really makes no difference. Then again just my opinion.
It's not a matter of winning an argument. It's a matter of winning a person over. If a person prefers a lie over honesty, then an opinion can win an argument. If an argument is founded on honesty, reason, truth and objectivity, then being opinionated is a dichotomy of being informed.
In most cases -when no evidence or fact is in play- an argument will end in the limbo. Wisdom will act when at least one of the parties learn from the another.
Opinions in general is what give the opportunity to look for more diversity of paths, ad help us to find more routes to take when a situation is in progress.
On the other hand, opinions alone can be used also to destroy, like when the reputation of a person is throw on the ground when some unfounded opinion is given about this person and others accept it.
Also, it is understood that opinions can reach the limit of the absurd when no objective evidence is presented, or when the interpretation of the evidence is erroneous.
For the reasons presented above and for many more, I think that winning or losing when arguments are in progress based in opinions alone is not defined by the consent of one of the parties but by the consequences when the discussion is over.
It seems that when we want to win we shut the door to the good resolving of a discussion ourselves.
Informed opinions do tend to stick and pave a way. On the other hand Sophistry never sold so much and so well as nowadays.
"Facts" are finite in scope.
When I say I eat an icecream and that is a fact, which it is, the scope is not quantum mechanics...
This is not to mean, not to say, not to be confused with absence of Truth, or absence of Facts. Rather it means that the mechanic of facts is composed of finite concepts in an holistic environment/ecosystem. No fact has infinite scope. As truth a fact has a finite operational limit, just like a function or a task does. Its truthfulness is circunscribed to that algorithmic sequitur precisely. Now why do ppl think that unless a fact has infinite/irrational scope it doesn't exist ? I, on the contrary, have a hard time dealing with infinities for measure of Truth...
Not with the use of facts, stats, or anything more substantial than what you believe.
Your argument will be just as irrelevant as your opponent's.
...oh, by the way what is the criteria for winning ?? Social pears, ? Argument ad populum ? Acceptance ? Arguments are won with truth even if no one knows it.