I find that whenever I actually argue, I always have the conclusion already written. Without it, it is impossible to have any direction, and an argument without any direction does not go anywhere.

Maybe that's true, for arguments. But it shouldn't be true for all of your thinking. Taking a simple example, if I'm working on a math problem (which is hard enough that I can't just intuit my way out of it), I do not pick an answer at the beginning, and then try to justify it. I work at the problem, and eventually I arrive at an answer. Only then will I get into actual arguments with people, if they disagree with my answer, and their disagreement is improperly founded.