Argument Construction

I wonder if one reason why so many arguments seem bad to me is because a lot of the time people are arguing for an idea that they and everyone they talk about it to already agree with, so they don't really think about how their argument looks to someone who doesn't already accept the conclusion?  This seems to be especially common the more status quo the idea is, I'm guessing because ideas that already seem acceptable to 'normal' people don't need to be argued for as often, and naysayers can be easily dismissed as unreasonable weirdos.  But I think this can happen to anyone who gets into an echo chamber where their ideas are uncritically accepted. 

Noticing Discrepencies

I wonder if people recognize bad arguments for conclusions they disagree with better than they do for conclusions they already agree with.  Which is to say, I wonder if someone could more easily point out actual real problems with an argument they ultimately disagree with, like circular arguments, strawmanning, ad hominems, etc., but if it would tend to slip under the radar if they do agree with the argument.  Intuitively, this makes sense to me, but one should never accept a conclusion on intuition alone.