I dont think seeking for arguments for their own sake, and I do think my discussions evolve into arguments very often. If I challenge groupthink in some way, people often rely on the opinions and conceptions they formed while in group, giving a chance for short discussion. The depth and bredth of arguments in such systems of thought is rapidly handled. Same goes for any thought systems with poor or flawed argumentative power or logical basis. I dont think my discussion partners ever feel humiliated, they just run out of arguments to provide for their case, and are soon forced to operate outside their thought system. They then notice a new point in how their thought system is related to outside world, which is uncharted territory for them, and provides them with a new learning opportunity. I often find in future conversations that the person has studied such new areas after they noticed them.
If someone is interested in handling information gracefully, discussions often evolve into appreciating each others observations, and we handle multiple topics that we appreciate in the same conversation.
If the person presents a good case on some though system I haven't known before, I become an appreciating inquirer and a challenger, but not in the way that I would hold sure that I am right.
If the person presents a bad case of argument to justify actions or a social philosophy I consider distasteful or inefficient, I will go to the end of it the tear that system apart, not the person, tho. It's not an argument, more like moving the lawn or cleaning a closet.
If the a point is being made that is challenging and well-presented but supports an offending conclusion, then I would say that argument starts.