One thing I find odd online is that people writing about philosophy often seek to defend positions that I would think most undergraduate philosophy students learn are inherently difficult to defend. Like, this wouldn't last five minutes if someone said it in a tutorial or seminar.

For instance, they'll often defend some sweeping generalization that's clearly easily refuted by finding a single counter example, or they'll claim something is self-evident that's clearly not to other people. Or they'll draw conclusions that are obviously vulnerable to reductio ad absurdum, because if they applied the same logic to other situations it would lead to conclusions they can't accept.

In relation to Stoicism, this goes on a lot. People will often claim that ALL ancient Stoics believed xyz, which is already a shaky generalization because only about 1% of the ancient literature actually survives. Even so, it's often easy to find counter examples that are a problem for their generalization.

Moreover, ancient literature is often unreliable or ambiguous. Yet they'll claim their interpretation is self-evidently accurate despite the fact other people interpret the evidence differently.

I will concede that it's a nuisance to have to keep saying “based on the limited evidence” and “although others have read this passage differently” etc. But generally I think it's good practice to notice which side in a debate is defending a rigid generalization and which side is arguing from a position of open mindedness and probability rather than certainty, and to bear in mind how difficult it is typically to defend the more rigid or sweeping position in principle, and to justify certainty I'm these matters. I think most ancient Stoics come across as if they were experienced enough in philosophy to tolerate a degree of uncertainty or ambiguity in their views, something that can help psychologically inoculate us against dogmatism, in the modern sense of the word.