system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How do I cultivate the ability to read a philosophical argument without being convinced/unconvinced?

I often find that when reading a new work, I struggle to remain unbiased, and am often immediately convinced by the writer. I feel like this may be hindering my ability to critically evaluate the work itself. 

&#x200B;

Are their techniques in reading that help to avoid or treat this? 

&#x200B;

I apologize if my question lacks sufficient clarity. If this is the case please do point it out and I will attempt to clear it up!
gpt
It's kind of a truism of philosophy that no argument has *everything* going for it, including most of the things you believe seem right: there are weak spots in even persuasive pieces of reasoning. You have to train yourself to actively think about the implications and the most powerful objections to any given argument.

Positive evaluations of arguments should be reserved for when you found the argument to survive all of the best possible objections you could throw at it (or, objections *others* have about it that you go out and find or ask for).

Skepticism & attempts at refutation are key -- once your argument seems inoculated as best as it can be from points of reasonable disagreement (by your lights), then you can tentatively be convinced.

Some of the most exciting moments you'll have studying philosophy will come when you put a lot of effort into refutation of something you believe & come to find that you've changed your own mind.