You are winning the wrong contest. Every argument has two layers. The position is what someone says out loud: "use vendor A," "this deadline is unrealistic." The interest is the reason underneath it, the thing they're actually protecting. Most people argue position against position, which is why being correct on the position doesn't win.
Positions collide because they're specific and brittle. "Launch in Q2" versus "launch in Q3" leaves no room to move. But interests are usually compatible even when positions aren't. The Q3 person might be protecting their team from a botched launch, not defending a date. You wanting Q2 might be protecting a revenue commitment. Those two things don't actually conflict.
This is why facts don't save you here. Facts settle positions. They do nothing to interests. If someone is defending an interest and you throw data at their stated position, the data never touches what they're protecting, so they dig in harder and you look like you're bulldozing someone who is, underneath, not even disagreeing with your facts.
Ask what a position is protecting: "What happens if we slip to Q2?" Once both interests are visible, you often find a third option neither position contained, one that satisfies both. That's not compromise, it's a better answer, and it's why logically correct people keep losing to people who found the interest first.
The IBC course teaches you to identify the interest underneath a stated position before you argue, because facts and logic only ever operate on positions, not on the reasons people actually hold them.