Generally speaking making the determination as to whether a specific set of evidences/arguments is sound or unsound requires demonstration (in some fashion) to others.
What happened to having no choice? Can we be in control of what evidence we believe but not in control of believing whatever it is the evidence points us to?
Strawman, I never said you had no choice, period, I said we don't choose
to believe things. We are either convinced, or we are not. If you allow irrational arguments to convince you of things (such as a fast talking salesman at your door) then you're likely to believe more bullshit. Is that OK for you? Do you want to be convinced of things by use of bad/irrational reasoning?
To the second question, I thought my previous answer was quite clear. We don't choose to believe things. We have to be convinced (either by good reasoning or bad), and what we choose to accept as sound/unsound evidence can depend upon background knowledge, presumptions, knowledge of proper reasoning (or lack thereof), etc.
Again, do you want to believe things based upon faulty presumptions? As I've asked before, do you even care whether or not your beliefs are actually true? If not then I suppose it doesn't matter if you question your assumption. I do care and that's the difference.
Are you trying to argue that all claims are equally valid?
Valid to who?
Red Herring. Are you a relativist now, or perhaps someone who thinks logic doesn't apply somewhere?
Now look whose dodging...