I'm referring to this notion of knowing what you want to conclude, and then fitting the argument to that specification. My intuition, at least, is that it would be more useful to focus on weaknesses of your newly adopted position - and if it's right, you're bound to end up with new arguments in favor of it anyway.

I agree, though, that agreement should not be taken as license to avoid engaging with a position.

I suppose I should note, given the origin of these comments, that I recommend these things only in a context of collaboration - and if we're talking about a concrete suggestion for action or the like rather than an airy matter of logic, the rules are somewhat different.