Examining the factors that the counter-speech uses is at the core of understanding the optimal methods for confronting hate speech online. Various studies assess the emotional base factor used in counter speech, such as emotion-empathy, offensiveness, and level of hostility. To better understand the counter-speech used in conversational interactions, this study distills persuasion modes into reason, emotion, and credibility and then evaluates their use in two types of conversation interactions: closed (multi-turn) and open (single-turn) conversation interactions concerning racism, sexism, and religion. The evaluation covers the distinct behaviors of human versus generated counter-speech. We also assess the interplay between the replies' stance and each mode of persuasion in the counter-speech. Notably, we observe nuanced differences in the counter-speech persuasion modes for open and closed interactions -- especially on the topic level -- with a general tendency to use reason as a persuasion mode to express the counterpoint to hate comments. The generated counter-speech tends to exhibit an emotional persuasion mode, while human counters lean towards using reasoning. Furthermore, our study shows that reason as a persuasion mode tends to obtain more supportive replies than do other persuasion types. The findings highlight the potential of incorporating persuasion modes into studies about countering hate speech, as these modes can serve as an optimal means of explainability and paves the way for the further adoption of the reply's stance and the role it plays in assessing what comprises the optimal counter-speech.