system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How do you make objections and counter arguments in continental philosophy?

Imagine I'm reading something like Hegel. He makes an argument along the lines of "a philosophy/idea/whathave you never comes before its time" or "truth is constantly becoming". Descartes's system was necessary for Spinoza's system to come about. 

Kierkegaard might say something like "in subjective thinking there is a double-reflection, you thank the universal and become even more subjective" or "communication between two people should never be direct and immediate" something along these lines. 

Now obviously Hegel and Kierkegaard develop these ideas much further, but how do you object to these ideas without just rejecting the entire idea outright? 

In more analytically inclined philosophy like Frege you can clearly argue against exact arguments he makes like Russell's paradox etc.   Even with modern thinkers like Leibniz, they have a system which you can challenge the internal logic, showing some things they say cannot be the case. 

Edit: when I'm reading these continental philosophers, I find myself nodding along and kind of agreeing with them because I feel like I'm not smart enough to object to them.  It kind of eats away at my confidence as a student.
gpt
One approach is to try to render the narrative that is being presented implausible in some way. For example you might imagine a counter-example or 'edge case' scenario where applying the narrative as given would lead to repugnant or absurd consequences - consequences that you don't think the author you are engaged with would want to accept or which would problematicize other aspects of their philosophy.

Of course you need to be careful because these authors aren't stupid and have put a lot of thought into what they're saying. And you also want to be charitable, meaning among other things that you should try to understand and adopt the author's definitions of their own terms.

Also, don't be afraid to be wrong, because you are going to be. It's the exercise of engagement that is useful in its own right, and which deepens your understanding through experience.