The phrase "órimi sképsi" (ώριμη σκέψη) is (according to Google Translate) Ancient Greek for "mature thought". From this I'm coining the English term "orimiskepsi" to mean a "well-developed, detailed, nuanced, and deep (although not necessarily perfect) understanding of a particular specific topic, based entirely on the individual's own painstaking self-directed and fearless investigation of that topic. I will also use the word "orimiskepser" to mean someone who works hard to develop an orimiskepsi, and who writes only from their present understanding of the topic, however developed (or undeveloped), without fluff, padding, fakery, rhetorical tricks, or any other bollocks.
An orimiskepsi is something you develop gradually, as you absorb various articles, podcasts, or videos on the topic and, most importantly, think for yourself about what all the various sources are saying, and whether logic and the evidence you're seeing tend to support one side, the other side, or indeed, as far as you can tell, any side at all.
Having an orimiskepsi does not imply that you have any real degree of confidence in your opinion on the topic. Having an orimiskepsi does not really imply that you have any thesis at all. In fact, having an orimiskepsi might even mean that you don't yet have a thesis, because your well-developed understanding of the topic might reveal that, so far you still don't quite know enough about the topic to settle on a specific thesis. "Orimiskepsi" means developed understanding, not necessarily full and complete understanding. (It's okay to say you don't know the answer. It's not okay to say you know the answer when you don't.)
If you are asked to demonstrate an orimiskepsi in a paper (which should be the point of every essay assignment, duh), you are being asked to after working out as best you can all the ins and outs, nuances and worries of an issue, write out your present take on the issue, even if your present take is that you can't at this point decide on a thesis because of one or two aspects that you haven't gotten fully worked out yet.
A person with an orimiskepsi may not have a complete understanding of a topic, but they know enough to explain the basic facts and definitions, to describe the known (and purported) evidence, to give at least some important arguments and counter-arguments given by each side, and have worked out at least some logical analysis of some of those arguments. A person with an orimiskepsi can speak intelligently, although not necessarily always correctly, about the topic.
A person with nothing more than a strong feeling that their opinion is true does not have an orimiskepsi. They're just being an idiot.
A person who can write down endless paraphrases of other people's claims and arguments, but who has not done any logical analysis of those claims and arguments does not have an orimiskepsi. In fact, from an academic point of view, they don't really have anything at all.
A person who starts by picking a thesis, and then writes a paper based only on finding arguments for their thesis, and finding ways to dismiss opposing arguments does not have an orimiskepsi. They have an opinion, and they're willing to tell lies to get people to share that opinion.
A person who writes a "paper" in the "normal" way of starting with an "introduction", eventually (maybe) stating a thesis, giving short, simplistic, and vague descriptions of arguments, perhaps throwing in half a paragraph of sloppy analysis, and then wasting half a page or more on a "conclusion" that merely repeats things they've already said is not demonstrating an orimiskepsi. They're just demonstrating that all of their high-school English composition teachers were complete crap.
A person who starts by picking a thesis, and then writes a paper vehemently, contemptuously, or mockingly insisting that their thesis is true, and that everyone who disagrees is foolish or dishonest does not have an orimiskepsi. They just have an opinion, and they're also complete scum.
A paper written by someone with an orimiskepsi will be clearly different from a paper written by someone without an orimiskepsi, because the first writer will obviously have at least some kind of real understanding of the topic, and the second writer will clearly not know what they are talking about,
A paper that fails to represent the results of a well-developed thinking process is a failed paper, even if your high-school English teacher would thought it a work of absolute genius.
A paper that clearly and completely explains the results of a well-developed thinking process is a good paper, even if your high-school English teacher would have haaaaaaated it.
If your way of writing is to first pick a thesis, and then look around for ways to promote that thesis, you are deliberately writing without any real understanding of your topic, and will most likely be writing complete rubbish, which, in this class, will get you a very bad grade.
A very, very bad grade.