Argument: Rationalism or Empiricism

An issue that has been bothering me for a while is that which take on an argument should be used: rationalism or empiricism.

Rationalism is, in the simplest explanation, knowledge that is gained by deriving it from basic knowledge or assumptions. In essence, you can sit down and think about it yourself to arrive at the answer you're looking for. I think one of the assumption here is that everything can be derived from something else.

Empiricism is, on the other hand, knowledge gained from observation and sensory experience. Many a times the results that are observed are not questioned, and accepted as truth. If we are not to question our own senses, it makes sense that what has happened cannot be denied or rebutted.

In many arguments, I tend to favor rationalism, which possess some problems because it seems that many people would rather believe what they had already seen, what had already "proven". Rationalism appears to be more convincing, and it's comforting in my opinion, to know that the worlds is understandable instead of undeniable.

What annoys me the most is when people argue about something as if it was irrefutable and is but something to be accepted, or to put it simply, "that's just how it works." Sure, there are many instances in which this is true, but from my experience at least, many a times this has been overused to describe a generalization of the fact. And it is convenient that it is used as such, for the arguing party, since once some main arguments became basic assumption, the end is clearly seen. It just doesn't seem to be so convincing, to be honest.