Conflict, healthy debating and much of life is built around the process of arguing. I might say this is mostly down to our own freedom to think and assert opinion through communication. I think arguments ought to be judged by their quality, not on whether or not they have a conclusion. This is where a healthy debate might assume, raising valid points of perspective from either side. A conclusion is just that, a conclusion. It does not follow from the premises.
You might say that if one has good premises, then they must have a good argument. But that isn't quite true and cane be seen as 'affirming the consequent.' If A, then B. B was observed; therefore, A. People may think that arguments are sound just because they have good conclusions. But that’s not entirely accurate. A conclusion does not follow from the premises.
The nature of arguments are that, in the end, it will be resolved. This can occur by one side convincing the other (which we would call a 'solution'), or by both sides failing to convince each other (which we might call an 'impasse'). The former case occurs when one party has made a successful demonstration, they have convinced others through clear reasoning and evidence.
Argument is often utilized in a rhetorical fashion. An example would be to obtain some desired result (such as winning an election) rather than the resolution of the argument itself. That said, argument is nevertheless a useful process for clarifying issues. So while some people might be adverse to argument as they see it as a means of confrontation, it should also be noted that arguments provide constructive debate and offer great value to society. Such is the world of science that argues over theory, as we have talked about much before, science is guided by theory which are not absolute fact and deserve to be refuted and debated over.