Here's a way to get more strategic.
Instead of arguing for a course of action based on the status quo or your emotional gut, describe the theory of the case.
A is true.
B is true.
If we do C, then A and B should permit us to get D.
The method of this strategic analysis is that you expose your assumptions, you describe your actions and your posit the results. This permits your teammates to supply facts that might change your analysis.
Wait, A isn't true.
Wait, we're not capable of doing C.
Wait, if we did C, it's not clear we would get D. Tell us how that would work…
This is far more useful than saying, "I hate you, you're an idiot." By making your assumptions and logic clear, you allow a more productive conversation to take place at the same time get buy in from your teammates who might be coming from a different worldview than you do.
Even better, you can then weave the case into a story, a vivid one that resonates.
If any of your steps involve doing something that's never been done before, you'll know where you need to focus your energy.
Too often, people fixate on a result they want and presume that if they just try really hard (with good intent) then maybe it'll happen.
PS if one of the steps is, "and then a miracle happens," you probably need to work on your case a bit.