A point against this: I have heard several anecdotes of the following form, as well as a purported explanation using catastrophe theory.

Person A and person B are arguing over X and Y. In the heat of the argument, person B has already determined which position (Y) they believe to be correct, and is looking for clever arguments for it, paying little attention to the arguments for X being advanced by person A, except insofar as they can attack them. Later, when they are in a calmer state, they reflect, and update their position. On subsequent occasions they may defend X (and in some of the anecdotes, deny ever having defended Y).

So I suppose that even some situations where your opponent seems like a hostile arguer have a chance of getting them to change their position (though not to change their position at the time). Depending on how valuable that is to you, it could be worth trying for even if the argument is painful.