"you don't have the raw data" is really a extremely poor argument.
In fact, it implicitly assumes your analysis is correct, on the available data. He is not challenging your analysis, he just says there is data you don't have access to that is necessary to reach their conclusions.
When they make their claims, they should present the data they think is at least enough to support them, so anyone can review the evidence and reach the same or different conclusions.
If it is enough to reach their claim, it should to be enough to reach a different one. That's when a debate can start about the correct interpretation of the data. It's the basics of science.
If you reach a different conclusion, they should point out what data you are not understanding correctly. If the argument is that you need data previously not shown, that means that their claim cannot be supported by the data they presented either.
It is their task to provide all the necessary data to support their claim. "You don't have the raw data" sounds pretty much like "The dog ate my homework"
