Of course, if you are just discussing matters with smart colleagues to flesh out dis(advantages), then you don't have to do that much work and can just ride the waves.
Well I say suffer: it comes from experience. In the past I used to change minds mid-argument - which just caused confusion and I ended up looking like a complete train wreck. Your right: argue your position hard but dont be scared to change it after the fact (after weighing the evidence). It's the classic Gut (instant feeling) vs. Head (rationale decision) theory.
I used to say that I'll probably change most of my opinions in the coming decade, but it is probably not true anymore; less than 50% will be changed in 2019, if I still live.
That is because the (few) opinions I have are quite well tested.
(There is also a distinction between my opinions and my more numerous "working hypotheses".)
Others, me included, do need the time afterwards to process that information.
This is why I rarely ever change my mind during a conversation. There's two parts to that.
1) I am usually able to construct a convincing counter-argument to whatever the other person is arguing, and so it is difficult to "win" the argument, so to speak.
2) I am aware of this, and also aware that a smart person I'm talking to will be equally able to construct a convincing argument - irrespective of the merits of what they're arguing.
So, to me, a good heated argument is just a good device to bring out pro and con arguments and clash them "in the field", so to speak. But a heated argument is not the place to come to a conclusion about which side of the argument is more correct. That needs to be done after the argument, in the peace and quiet of your own head, over the following days.
The funny thing is, often, I do change my mind after the argument (even though I was making a strong case for the opposing view during the argument), and it can be quite surprising for people to overhear me, 2 days later, arguing the very opposite of my previous point with equal vehemence.