Is 'Winning' the same as 'Convincing'?

If you convince someone to douse themselves in gasoline with you and set you both on fire ... what have you won?

No. A person may "win" a religious debate by making better arguments, looking cooler, and skillfully using techniques. But often this will fail to be completely "convincing." A really "convincing" argument would result in the loser wanting to convert to the religion of the winner.

It certainly depends on what you are persuading yourself and/or others too.

"Speak not in the ears of a fool, because they will not hear the wisdom of your words"

One thing people more seldom realize, if you speak to a person to persuade them of things they are not going to let themselves understand, you actually strengthen their resolve and frame of thought to be established against what you think to be the better reasoning.

I have no actual desire toward the discomfort of an atheist. However, I often find myself forced into the position to rather their discomfort than a pointless and unproductive, perhaps even destructive, argument between us or with other people. Better for them to be discomforted at persisting to argue than for the result to be even the worse off. I also understand atheist making the religious the less comfortable in argument if they fail to communicate things in ways to them that can be adequately understood and accepted for their true acceptability. Debating is debating( a contesting). Finding agreement, is finding agreement. What is genuinely true, is what is genuinely true, and what is not genuinely true, is not what is genuinely true. Each of such things can be separate things to consider.

No, nobody ever convinces the other person in an argument. The winner is whoever boosted their own ego the most.

It is the work of the HOLY GHOST that brings PEOPLE to CHRIST...One MUST YEILD to HIM.

of course not.