When we attempt to convince another that our point of view is the right one, it often ends up in an emotionally charged name-calling swearing match with defamatory accusations that are meant to offend. A winner of an argument does not need to do such a thing because they will be confident in their argument and any personal attack is a sign of forfeiture of the offending party.
Unfortunately for the one winning the argument, they purposely allocate the energy that would be used to project emotions to their opponent and harness it to dig deep into their brains to make the factual points needed to win the argument. That leaves the one winning the argument boring, sterile and unconvincing and in our celebrity, drama crazed, low attention and stimuli dominated culture, people think the performance wins the argument, not the logic and facts.
On a societal level, when people judge the winner of an argument strictly by its performance and not substance, it's an indication that society is is very mentally ill and does not operate in reality because the root of all mental illness is living a life and making decisions based on unreality. But we see things in our institutions that promote this unreality like how me must call a transgender person a 'she' when it's obviously a he but given the performance of the emotional and accusatory argument of the defender of this gender unreality seems so confident that this he is a she, others do not question this unreality, mostly out of fear that they will be labeled as a hateful bigot.
The one who gets angry over facts and logic is the first one to threaten because they feel threatened, even though they are not actually threatened, which is another action based off of unreality. Why the unstable party in the argument feels threatened is like because they are a narcissist who identifies with their facade. The narcissist usually turns to outbursts and meltdowns when their unrealistic and inflated sense of self is exposed. When arguing with a narcissist, you are not playing the same game as they are. Their goal is not to present facts for a common goal of trading and being open to better ideas so this world is a better place, this is war for the narcissist.
So now that needlessly hostile arguing can be assumed to be held by the pathological narcissist who does not seek to win an argument by presenting facts and logic but by means of the survival of their inflated and unrealistic image of themselves we can determine that deep down their false image must be approved of. They seek approval, not common ground and real progress.
There is an element of performance when arguing, especially in our artificially mesmerized society but it cannot be scripted. Raw emotion when arguing is bound to come out when you're so confident of your point but facts and logic must take center stage. When dealing with the narcissist type who argues to maintain the survival of their persona, one must find out that persona and massage it. That will help lower their defenses so your facts penetrate to a more logical area of the brain.