Investing should be seen like poker - there are multiple future scenarios, with each outcome having different likelihoods assigned to them. Follow the Uncertainty Principle - even the most obvious investments have some downside or upside risk. Invest where the reward outweighs the risk and over time you will come out on top (again, similar to poker)
Start with the assumption that the stock is fairly priced and factors in both bull and bear arguments. Any market mispricing will often require further digging than the obvious points
This means that for every bull thesis, there is a bear thesis, and that there is a decent argument on both ends (usually)
This also means that for anyone who is super confident in tone, they are likely not giving enough credence to the other side. The market is incredibly sophisticated [link], and there are no easy wins
Crux of an argument should look at fundamental analysis - the drivers of the business - and not valuation. [link to framework]. Stocks moving up on valuation alone are rare - usually, you need the fundamentals to improve to then get multiple expansion. Valuation arguments do not take into account #1 often enough - that markets are incredibly sophisticated. You are essentially hoping that investors wake up the next day and all suddenly realize that they've been analyzing companies wrong. If you're analyzing a healthcare company, you have to talk about the drugs! If you are analyzing a global consumer goods company that makes a lot of acquisitions, you gotta be looking at organic (excluding FX and excluding M&A) growth rates by segment! This is what the smart money cares about and what they're spending hours debating, not some novel new valuation method.