It might not entirely help, but ... be ok with it.
I wouldn't hold it against people that think faster in some situations, as they may actually be right. Calling them "wrong" is difficult, and wrong is often a gray area. Communication is vital and it needs to happen fast in a lot of scenarios. Those that overcommunicate and lead probably will get ahead even if they are wrong sometimes. But everybody's wrong from time to time, even someone's carefully-deliberated points have holes.
In fact, it's probably true that nothing is ever 100% correct. So many debates in tech circles come from these mathematical constructions set out to prove someone's idea isn't perfect or they are doing it wrong. The truth is, nothing is ever perfect, and is bounded by compromise, ideals, lots of intangibles, and available inputs.
Basically, tech is easiest when everyone drops their ego about being wrong and just seeks to find the best answer. Voice questions when you have them, ask for clarification when you need to, find compromises when you can. This is also very hard if you're jockeying for status, wanting more control of something, wanting a new architecture or project to succeed. Kind of in the "desire leads to suffering" vein, you have to sort of drop that desire and focus on the actual present at that very instant.
This can be a problem when you have inexperienced people making decisions, or when, say, a product side of the house doesn't do good homework and can't achieve good product/market fit. From the tech side, trying to fix the business side and seeing gaps in it is incredibly rough.
If they are clearly incorrect in your eyes, this is a point where you need to debate merits, not speaking styles, and genuinely want to compromise and help both sides of the equation (Nash Equilibrium) versus trying to win the argument. That's something that gets immediately picked up on by the other side of the table.
If you have a question later, raising it later is ok. Often better if you can ask someone directly than attempt to argue it over email, in many cases, as that can create a us-vs-them scenario.
It's important to make sure you're both in it to choose the right answer. Much of the conflict of tech is when two parties have conflicting goals, i.e. someone wants to make a good architecture, someone else wants to win some key accounts and improve something later, and then build up walls where they don't like talking to each other.
The problem occurs when someone is unwilling to accept new data and reform conclusions, or when folks are unable to compromise, more so than if someone is, per se, acting confident.
It's also a lot easier to be confident when you can admit what you don't know, and only really go to the mat for the parts you really believe in. Having to defend a losing side of a decision is incredibly hard, so it's best to not play that game.
If faced with conflicting priorities or ideas, sometimes it's best if you can just list out the tradeoffs and then raise the question "which one of these things/aspects is most important?" or trying to get an outside party to set priorities.
Tech is hard because there's so much art/craftsmanship/opinion mixed in versus just getting the work done, and few standards. And lots of different ways to solve the same problems, and limited time so not all problems can be solved immediately.
As the folks on the other side of the table are human, be careful of walls forming. Once you get into a situation where you don't like talking to them, and you or them are woried about being "wrong" and vice versa, it's very difficult to repair.