Those that rely on logic as a weapon in a debate limit their arsenal significantly. Logic and critical thinking are fantastic problem solving tools. Their utility in an argument are minimal.
If we're being strict, an argument can only be "won" if it's both sound and valid in the logical sense. Being able to intimidate or otherwise coerce your enemy into agreeing is otherwise a false conclusion.
On the other hand, the practical value of logic in debates is subject to serious inquiry. If we readily accept that logic is the correct way to "win" an argument, then why are we so categorically bad at applying it?
Various reasons, of course, but a key one is that we're lazy: formal logic needs to be applied to something, but apparently accusing the other guy of fallacies is more fun than the boring old job of taking time to define one's terms. How many arguments have you seen that keep going back and forth because each side is using slightly different meanings or understandings of some concept. Yet almost never does anyone stop to say, "Hey, what exactly do you mean by X? I'm using it in this sense…"
I (sort of) disagree. In my experience, I have found that if an argument is both strong rhetorically, and logically valid, it is very difficult to refute. Strong rhetoric without the backing logical validity can always be deflected by more strong rhetoric.
