The classic sceptical approach

When reading or commenting on a issue, one reader can take many point of views. Any fool can agree, any fool can criticize. But not many fools can criticize effectively.What do I mean by criticizing is to criticize effectively.
By criticizing effectively, I don't mean disagreeing. I mean disagreeing in a logical and rational manner.
To paraphrase, criticizing effectively is to criticize ruthlessly, taking the enemy(other) argument apart justification by justification, premise by premise, point by point.
You do not realise how important it is to criticize nowadays. Criticism improves your spiritual health, deproves others, boosts your ego and shatters other egos. Most importantly, it is fun.
Fun, as in a sadistic kind of fun.
Thus, you will need a systematic way to take the enemy argument apart.I propose scepticism for amateur users.A sceptic {skep-tick} is one who does not believe anything. He has to question. The sceptic's god is the question mark (though most sceptics are quite sceptical about this).
Sceptics come in two groups:1) The ordinary sceptic- He thrives by questioning. Question everything. Question in a disaproving way. Like this: Why do you say this? I don't think it is like this. When disproved, normal sceptics just grumble and accept the best option. Try to make a scene out of it.
2) The philosophical sceptic-This kind is more dangerous. He argues philosophically and indulges in philosophical sceptism.
The first example of scepticism will come soon.
Watch out for it.

Brain in a Vat