There is no battle, if you like the one hour photo look and you want your image set in stone them go jpg. If you want a digital negative that you develop to match what you saw in your mind's eye then shoot RAW. Ask yourself What Would Ansel Do? BTW, the answer is shoot RAW. Why in the world would you ever want to throw away 90% of your pixels and let a computer apply a standardized data base comparison cookie cutter filter to a potential work of art? You might as well just send the files to Walgreens and let them crop and print them on 4 x 6 craptastic paper.
I guess I am saying learn exposure, learn composition and learn post processing if you want to be a photographer. Or just take snap shots and let the camera do the heavy lifting for you.
I am not being a snob but I am being realistic jpg is a short cut, you can take some very pretty pictures in jpg, but ultimately jpg is allowing someone else dictate your artistic vision. That some one is am engineer that takes thousands of photos from a myriad of professionals, and them compares your image to their images and applies, color correction, dynamic range correction, and in some cases will even crop and resemble your image to make it more visually appealing. Sure you can make minor color, white balance, and contrast adjustments but this does not override the database comparison software and it does not rescue the pixels that are lost forever when you go from 16/14/12 bit to an 8bit image. Those pixels are gone forever. Just learn to shoot RAW.