But if you allow people to request sources for anything, it can be used to filibuster, and distract from a debate. It can be used to postpone the conclusion indefinitely, by always asking another question.
Ideally every question would be answered but the reality is that a lot of people aren't willing to have a fair debate. Having no limit on what you allow people to ask for sources on allows then to indefinitely avoid arguments that go against them, and people will use this.
It's also a huge drag for the person who is being filibustered, you can't honestly expect anyone to be willing to go through a never ending tactic used to dodge the results of a debate.
That a person can be dishonest, obtuse, or pedantic in debate or in the use of sources is an issue whether one holds to a standard of source usage or not. The issue is the person's dishonesty/obsequiousness/etc., which should certainly be called out and addressed if suspected or observed. Deliberately and consistently stalling any progress or resolution in debate by asking for sources on every trivial detail undermines the spirit and practice of debate.
This doesn't necessarily entail that holding participants to a standard in the use of sources is misguided, or should be rejected due to the abuses of others. A standard in sourcing doesn't prevent abuses in the slightest. What it does do is provide participants with a structure to evaluate the strength of sources (and arguments or points that are contingent on them).
What is the distinction, you might ask, between earnest discussions on source validity (requests, critiques, defenses), and pedantic citational lollygagging? It may not always be clear-cut, but myself, I prefer to give my partners the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions, until I suspect their intent to be dubious.
My "method", as it were, is a standard that I seek to hold to***,
even if no one else does. Because I see value in the things I discussed -- using sources for empirical claims, evaluating the merits of a given source, etc. etc. If my partners abuse debate conventions and citation pedantry and so forth, and debate is irreparably sullied, then
at least I'll have stuck to my standard of citation usage. If, even after I apply such a standard in myself and try to hold others to it, and they don't or fail to, then I can say, so far as sources are concerned, that I was not at fault for the debate turning sour.
There is a limit on what people can ask sources for, and this limit is that only empirical claims require sources by necessity. If you hold people to this standard, and they fail to comply, then they become at fault (and you can proceed by informing them as such, deciding to no longer treat with such persons, or so on).
***Granted, I haven't delved much in DH threads that deal heavily with empirical topics, so I haven't applied my standards in any great extent. But that's both because A) I value holding to such standards on principle, and B) I don't like to enter discussions in which I suspect my knowledge to be insufficient, and I don't know much about much.
What philosophically would make for an ideal debate is not necessarily the reality of what makes for the best way to debate.
You're method also mandates that we must always round down, to the most ignorant person, explaining everything to them, but there is always someone who won't be able to understand something, and it's a drag on intelligent people's discussion to have to be expected to cater to any level of ignorance, and it can also make a debate last indefinitely as new people come in.
Realistically I think you must put some of the responsibility on the person reading, to understand the argument, I can't be expected to have to prove everything to everyone irregardless of whether or not they are even willing to learn.
Which is why you should only enter a debate if you are confident that you know what you're talking about, and/or have a case to make (and make it clear when you don't or can't). This is my approach, in any case.
So for a discussion on whether we should in fact have bicycle lanes, it would be expected that the participants have some knowledge on the subject, so as to make substantive and cogent points (and counterpoints). If a participant shows insufficient understanding or knowledge on the matter, then A) why are they even participating in the first place, and B) it would be better to inform them that, in your estimation, their knowledge is insufficient.
Perhaps you might helpfully point them to further resources or reading. Perhaps they'll take you up on that offer. Perhaps they'll dismiss you as some arrogant cudwad, trying to undermine them by alleging their ignorance. Then you might ask them to show that they do in fact possess savvy on the subject. Or walk away, if they are clearly belligerent and not interested in educating themselves. And so it goes.
If participants demonstrate that they are unwilling to be reasonable, even after attempts to maintain a proper standard of debate, then you don't have to treat with them. They might say "nyah nyah, I win!" as you walk away, but you'll know better.
With your method if I don't want to spend the time addressing every little unreasonable question ever asked then my credibility suffers, then it's fair to try and discredit me for not addressing these questions. It's never ending and a distraction.
If a question is unreasonable, why would you consider it seriously? If a question is unreasonable, would you not then say "this question is unreasonable, and here is why"?
Your credibility suffers if you are inconsistent in how you apply citations. If you do apply a standard consistently, but your partners don't, then it is
their credibility that will suffer. They might deny it, or accuse you of dodging the question, or what have you. But the thing about debating online is that there is a transcript of what's been said. So anyone can peer into a thread and have access to a record of the debate, and see who it is that was credible, and who wasn't.
Besides, questioning credibility is something that comes later. First one addresses the arguments as presented. If no progress is made due to the suspicion of dishonest intention, then you can address such suspicions. If such suspicions failed to be addressed or resolved, then questioning of credibility may become warranted.
If someone tries to discredit you because you refuse to submit to their pedantry, then so be it. It will be on record that you didn't submit to their pedantry.
I approach debate by doing such things as granting the benefit of the doubt, trying to meet partners halfway, being transparent about what I know and don't, trying to ensure that I do understand another's argument on their terms, being charitable, and so on -- even if my partners do none of these things themselves. This doesn't mean one shouldn't try to reason with such uncharitable folks. But if, after all strategies have been exhausted, they remain unwilling to meet you halfway, then the only recourse left is to walk away. And I don't know about you, but I'm totally fine with that.
tl;dr: holding to a standard for citations in yourself and in others does precisely zero things to prevent abuse and exploitation of debate and source methodology by other parties. But then again, it was never meant to.
