Freezing conflicts is frequently considered a good thing because people aren't getting violently killed and property isn't being violently destroyed when a conflict is frozen or there is a cease-fire.
Often, cease fires are utilized to allow innocent civilians to flee an area of previously active military conflict, or to allow humanitarian aid to be provided to people in an area of previously active military conflict, even if the cease fire doesn't end up serving as a step towards a long term peace. These measures are in the nature of "harm reduction", not ending the conflict, but reducing the harm caused by the conflict to those who are blameless in it.
Also, while a conflict can break out again and get bloodier, not infrequently this doesn't happen. The conflicts between North Korea and South Korea, the conflict in Cyprus, and the conflict between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) are three examples of cease fires not leading to further conflict for a long period of time. About one in five cease fires end a conflict that does not later resume.
Many conflicts that are ultimately ended with a cease fire had multiple cease fires that are only temporary, until finally a cease fire does last and end the conflict for good. The prior cease fires often set the stage for a later permanent end to the conflict even when they are themselves temporary.
More generally, every lasting peace must at some point start with a cease fire, even though not all cease fires will lead to lasting peace.
Likewise, a formal treaty that purports to finally and completely end the conflict not infrequently fails to do so, at least the first time the parties attempt to end a conflict with a treaty.
This isn't to discount the reality that a cease fire, by preventing a conflict that was heading towards a military victory by one side or the other in fairly short order, might prolong a war or give rise to more long term casualties. This is a real and unappreciated concern, as a cease fire may provide a respite that allows a weakened party to continue fighting much longer. Sometimes "giving war a chance" can reduce long term harm.
For example, U.S. intervention in Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 stalled the Taliban's nearly complete campaign to gain full control of the entire country and in short order temporarily brought that civil war to a low simmer from a raging war. But, when the U.S. withdrew in 2021, the Taliban, twenty years later, was swiftly able to achieve the goal of control of all of Afghanistan that it had been on the brink of achieving immediately before the U.S. intervention.
Ultimately, one has to evaluate the desirability of a cease fire on a case by case basis.
But, the fact that a cease fire can only happen with the mutual agreement of the warring parties is a strong check on the capacity of cease fires to be used as a tool for the weaker party in the military conflict to gain a strategic advantage that will prolong the war and potentially lead to more harm in the long run.