If someone phrases something really well or makes an argument really well - say, better than I could offhand - then I'm happy linking to a source or a video.

EDIT: Using sources can also be helpful to further clarify an idea.

But you probably wouldn't refuse to describe the argument by yourself if asked. Then it would be to reinforce your argument.

And I was talking about arguments that are truly too long to post (like many hours of lectures or reading long) making their criticism often also too long to post. To me, it seems like a sneaky way to promote sources in a way that is hard to criticize.

I'm starting this thread because of a couple of current threads start with a text that has almost no content by itself and just says to read a couple of books. The titles and the texts imply that the topic is generic about the issue and not just about the specific books given. Also, many of the following posts are just posting sources and flat out refusing to describe ones arguments.

If we're in an argument or discussion and I post a link to a 3 hour lecture or 20 page paper instead of explaining that's just bad etiquette.

It really just comes down to etiquette. Videos can often convey more information and do it in a shorter time span than an article. I'll sometimes link a 5 or maybe 10 minute video but I'll re-watch it to make sure it's relevant to our discussion.

When it comes to text I might recommend an article or book but I'll never just drop a title in response to an actual argument be like "yo read dis."

A rough guideline is that your posts should stand alone without their references. Certainly, central parts of arguments or posts in general should usually not be deferred to a reference; it should at least be summarised and how it relates to the subject matter spelled out.

Depends on the context.

No dialogue is helped by the suggestion the other person needs to read an entire book before the conversation can continue... or, at least, that does put a stop to the dialogue even if it might be true. I'm imagining contexts where you're trying to talk about some complex and specific concept and the other person doesn't have any baseline knowledge. The counter-argument would be I guess that you should be able to condense the main ideas into a digestible post.... but I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes just not wanting to have a conversation at that level because you're interested in going deeper and not just endlessly debating the most basic elements.

To make a really silly example of it, it would be like trying to discuss the merits (or demerits) of the most recent Star Wars movie, but your interlocutor hasn't seen any of them, doesn't know the plot, and generally has little knowledge of the sci-fi genre. You might just say "well, you gotta watch the movies first." Conversation over, but it was also clear that the conversation was not going anywhere useful to you.

Videos can often convey more information and do it in a shorter time span than an article. I'll sometimes link a 5 or maybe 10 minute video but I'll re-watch it to make sure it's relevant to our discussion. — BitconnectCarlos

If you read like a snail, I suppose.

Yes, it’s really just laziness and a lack of desire to hone one’s own explanation skills that causes people to “name drop” sources instead of making those sources more accessible and relevant to the conversation. Usually, it takes me like 10 posts to fully explain all of my ideas relevant to the topic. So, I try to start with a simplified version of my viewpoint and then make my viewpoint more complex and provide more detailed arguments for my viewpoints. The disadvantage of this approach though is that it makes it seem like I am changing my entire argument or position when I’m really just getting more specific about what I really believe. The advantage of this approach though is that it allows you to figure out which of your ideas are relevant to the conversation and which are not relevant. Sometimes, you should exclude certain details to avoid simply confusing the person you are talking to and I usually provide plenty of examples to try to minimize confusion. Though, usually explaining your position and argument is a grinding task and confusion is to be expected.

It allows them to make assertions, present them as well reasoned conclusions, and deflect any criticism of their assertions as just a poor understanding of the source.

-My argument is too complex to post - read this book to understand.

-I read the book. It was a bad argument.

-Why is that?

-Too complex to explain here. Read the book. — Qmeri

I like this. "Here's looking at you, kid." It is glib, clever, and wastes no time. It uses the same weaponry as the offender -- I called the offender "offender" because I do get offended by source-mentioning and concurrent and later avoidance of para-small-phrasing the topic of the sources.