People throw around statistics like they're strong evidence, but they're not. Most times I see someone use a statistical argument online, I shake my head and scroll down to the next post. Here's why.
Statistics have a two-fold trust problem. For one thing, wherever you found out the statistic you're planning to use I'd bet it was from a source that agreed with what you're using the statistics to argue for. In that case, how do you know they didn't make it up, given it's in their interests to do so? (And if it wasn't from a source that agreed with their implication then they probably just got it from someone else who did.) The only way to get statistics that are reliable to the point that you should change your otherwise well-founded beliefs because of them is to gather them yourself, and then you most likely run into sample size issues... But suppose you do have reliable statistics. When you present it in an argument why should your opponent believe you? It's in your interests to make it up and statistics generally are not things you can prove to a new person without redoing all the experiments.
Statistics are not nearly as easily interpreted as people think. People often succeed in proving that there is a non-coincidental correlation between A and B and then argue that A must be the cause of B. However, in most cases this ignores the possibility that B is the cause of A, or that a certain C causes both B and A.