The only problem is, that these are both content empty statements. I don't really think that fighting rhetoric with rhetoric is necessarily the best approach , especially when such a comparative advantage is held when it comes to the presence of evidence/lack of evidence for Islam and associated supernatural entities.
You are entirely correct Asbie. They are content empty, just like most things that Muslims will say in a debate.
I would not use them by themselves, but more for signing off, i.e. if you are discussing the age of marriage of Aisha with a Muslim, you can refer to the specific Hadiths that discuss the age of Marriage and then end with the line "No matter how much they try to hide the truth, the truth will overcome".
And obviously it all depends on the people you are debating with, but some Muslims simply do not read real evidence, they ignore it, they are only interested in rhetoric.
For example if you write out a little paragraph about some aspect of Muhammad's life that seems a little dodgy by modern standards, and you cite plenty of sources from Hadith. A lot of Muslims will totally ignore your evidence and simply reply with one of these:
"That's a big lie"
"That is Islamophobia"
"You just hate Muslims"
"That is Western propaganda" (even though the sources used are Hadith)
So why not throw a little rhetoric back if that's what moves them emotionally (but combine it with evidence of course).