The invalid reasoning a person might have for an argument does not necessarily invalidate the argument (if you can reach the same argument from multiple reasonings), it only discredits their ability to form arguments with a valid basis.
So a long conversation can lead to the person losing credibility, but a strong rebuttal focused on the initial argument, to me, is more important if what we want is to refute the argument.
Both have their place, but usually arguments start from low-effort jabs that then turn into serious refutations from others. Fundamentally, though, is the response, giving the original jab-maker a chance to give an actual argument, upon which it can fall apart and prove the original argument better, or can refute the argument and justify the jab.
It depends.
The invalid reasoning a person might have for an argument does not necessarily invalidate the argument (if you can reach the same argument from multiple reasonings), it only discredits their ability to form arguments with a valid basis.
So a long conversation can lead to the person losing credibility, but a strong rebuttal focused on the initial argument, to me, is more important if what we want is to refute the argument.
Both have their place, but usually arguments start from low-effort jabs that then turn into serious refutations from others. Fundamentally, though, is the response, giving the original jab-maker a chance to give an actual argument, upon which it can fall apart and prove the original argument better, or can refute the argument and justify the jab.