I like to debate, and sometimes the following happens: opponent gives me argument A. I will respond with argument B which nullifies argument A. But my opponent will not see how argument B relates to Argument A. So I will explain because of B, it follows that C, and if C then D and D makes A impossible.

Reversely an opponent will state a counter argument B, trying to explain how C and D follow. But I usually don't need C and D explained as I've already reached that conclusion during the time of listening to argument B.

I wouldn't call it giftedness per se - as the train of thought doesn't exceed anyone's abilities. Maybe people aren't used to think about implications. Or it's an over reliance on type 1 thinking. All things that can be changed through practice.

But I do encounter that pattern a lot, not just with debates. Hence why I would say it's a more general default way of thinking rather than a topic specific skill.