Overall, this sounds like a personality difference. There are lots of successful academics who want to think about things for a while rather than exploring the ideas out loud. Ideally, you'll find a way to work with your supervisor's style while also retaining the benefits of a more contemplative style. (And you're not alone. There are jokes about how many hands academics actually have, because so often they say, "On the one hand... on the other hand...")
What I'm picturing when you say "debate" is some of my friends. (A synonym here may be "BS" or "brainstorm.") They have personalities where they love saying crazy ideas out loud and then poking holes in them and figuring out which parts are wrong. There are often cultures that build up around this, where people who want to do this find each other and build off of each other. If this is what you're talking about, then I don't think it's a problem for your research that that's not your dominant mode.
If these debates are more grounded (along the lines of what you might see at a thesis defense), then you might be feeling conflict-avoidance, where you avoid disagreeing with people and feel extremely uncomfortable when others are in disagreement. Or you might be nervous and find it hard to come up with arguments when people are putting you on the spot. Or you might be answering fine, but not enjoying the process. You can definitely develop those skills and get better at them.
Finally, you may be interested in the book Quiet, about the benefits of being an introvert. It has many examples of how people can succeed in a variety of jobs even though their personality does not match the stereotypical person there.