The rationalists believed that only internal information could be

trusted. The empiricists thought the opposite. Kant united them.

The best argument for rationalism is probably the tried and true, “I think
therefore I am”. Descartes came to this conclusion by assuming one can’t
believe anything. But if that is the case, then you are not thinking, but then
you wouldn’t be thinking about not thinking, so therefore you must exist at
least as some sort of disembodied brain. The reason this argument is so
good is that it cannot be disproven, and as long as it remains undisprovable
it is impossible for it to be impossible and it makes sense.
On the opposite side of the philosophical spectrum you have the
empiricists. They thought that only sensory knowledge was factual and the
mind wasn’t actually useful without the sensory knowledge. I‘m not going to
write about their best arguments because they didn’t really have any.
Similar to religious people, the empiricists also had a belief that they blindly
believed in.
Kant united the warring philosophical nations by proposing his own
argument. A revolutionary argument that stated that it may be possible for
both to be equally required. The philosophy is called transcendental
idealism and it states that there are 2 different forms of knowledge: a priori
and a posteriori. Kant’s approach combines the rationalist knowledge of
thinking and the empirical knowledge of sensory physical observation. You
cannot do anything with the empirical knowledge without rationalist
knowledge and rationalist knowledge can’t be applied to anything without
empirical knowledge.