What is the best way to have a discussion requiring citations on the internet?

I’m having a mild disagreement with a couple of people who seem to feel the best way to make their point is to flood the other person with citations. The following comment is what really started it”

J: Strangely, nobody ever seems to ask me for my sources. That might, however, be because the last time someone did, I dropped a bomb of citations to wade through.
***********************************
I said, That’s not fair Jonathan. Just one or two RELIABLE ones would be sufficient
*************************************
J: I’ve seen the length of my comments where I get asked for sourcing. The book is then 1–2 per point made. And Fair? That’s adorable!
**********************************************
Me: My questions is, I guess, do you really want people to look carefully at your sources? Do you really want to have a discussion, or do you just want to “win” at any cost? Throwing a thousand sources at them at once pretty much ensures they won’t carefully review your evidence, but will probably just walk away instead. That’s why it isn’t fair. It’s not a fair way to “win.” And…it actually isn’t winning. No one wins in a situation like that. They learn nothing, you learn nothing. Everyone loses.
********************************************
J: It’s a sad day when I, as a cynic, have a higher opinion of human nature than others. I actually find that quite the opposite occurs, and I get into more detailed and honest exchanges of ideas when I can show that I’m not relying on just one idea from a potentially flawed source, but rather can find sourcing that jumps along a spectrum of belief on a given topic.

You see, in my experience, one of two things occur – either the other person doesn’t want the conversation, in which case everyone does lose, or they recognize that the person disagreeing with then is willing to put in as much time and thought is required to develop a nuanced position, a healthy interchange of ideas ensues, and everyone wins.

Now I suppose this is where I should put the universal disclaimer of YMMV, but that always feels like a cop out to me, and thus I severely dislike doing it.

Winning is irrelevant, at least to me, much as I find fairness to be. Reality is not fair. Reality does not dictate a winner. It simply is.

And the first burden of civility is to accept the truth of reality for what it is, because without even an agreement on such a baseline measure, discussions and any benefits which attach thereto can never be found.
********************************************
Me: If you REALLY want them to peruse your information, give them one source, maybe two, at a time. You can get through all 500 sources that way, eventually. It shows the same amount of thought, but it also shows a willingness to communicate effectively.
********************************************
J: If that were true, why do I find conversations where I simply don’t need to take your approach?

Perhaps it is the mechanism that you personally would prefer, and if so, that’s fine. I would think that people would acknowledge that the mechanism they prefer to be communicated to isn’t a requirement for a universal approach.

Effective communications are a function both of the skills of the communicator and the listener, and is therefore – by its nature – a dynamically shifting set of requirements.

I’ve offered many of my friends the approach you recommend. They refused, because they felt that it was me trying to spoon feed them data, and to be condescending while doing it. Again, that’s their choice, and it works better for me.

Now if you want to discuss communication theory, I’m down for that. If you want to discuss your personal preferences, I’m ok with that too, but would hardly be the subject matter expert you are regarding yourself. However, I would recommend a different forum as I think such a conversation would hijack Cat’s thread more than it already has (sorry for my part in that, dear one), and besides which, I would hope that an alternate forum would remind you that passive aggressive comments like your “if you REALLY want them to pursue your information…” can be left by the side of the road where such comments belong.
********************************************
Molly Somebody chimed in with: “Valerie: the last time someone asked me for sources, I just offered 2 or 3….the response was along the lines of “so the opinions of just 2–3 people is all you have?” That’s nit the first time i’ve had to deal with that kind of dismissive attitude, either. After that I “dropped the source bomb”....because, you know, sometimes it’s just the best way to get your point across.”
********************************************
Me: Molly, so then you offer three more. If they keep up along those lines, then that is their problem. They really don’t want to know.
My point is, I have tried to have discussions with people who, when asked for sources, throw, as Jonathan said he does ”....a bomb of citations to wade through.” To me that’s basically screaming, throwing a temper tantrum so the other person will leave the room, at which point the person who did it can pat him or herself on the back because they won the argument by default. I disagree that it could ever be “the best way” to get your point across. It’s the best way to create a distraction, a smoke screen.
********************************************
Molly: In my experience arguing on the internet (which is, I’m both ashamed and proud to admit, is extensive), most of the time those whom I am arguing against fall into one of two categories: those who listen, and those who do not care how much evidence you have or how well you argue your point. The first group have actually listened to what you have said so far, and will look at a few of the “source bombed” links in order to verify that your argument is supported. The “source bomb” to them is not a deterrent. The other group isn’t going to click anything you link them to, whether you’ve offered 1 source or 50…they have already decided that they ate right, I am wrong, and anything I could possibly have to support my case is biased, prejudiced, and/or a lie. If a source bomb causes those of the second group to shut up and leave, the debate is better off.
********************************************
J: False assumption on your part, and that’s fine. The reason that it’s false, and I keep trying to point this out, is that it may be a horrible way to communicate to you, but some people prefer things that way. I won’t deny that I’m lucky in having several friends like that.. perhaps because of the very reason that we prefer communicating in compatible manners.

As for your preferences? Wonderful. Should I ever find the need to bring citations into a discussion with you, I’ll be sure to only offer 1–2 at a time, because that’s what the dynamics of good communications with you require. The requirements for good communications with others have different things that are wanted and required.

If fairness is so important, perhaps that same fairness would require you to acknowledge that. Yet, in 5 posts, I have seen an utter unwillingness to do so, and actually to go further down the dismissive road that says that yours is the only true way. In light of this, and the comment you hit like on above, I can only therefore conclude that you lack any sort of interest in civil behavior unless it fits within the small confines of what is wanted by you.
********************************************
Me: I appreciate your willingness to present me with only 1 or 2 citations at a time so I can thoroughly review the merits of each one, and present my thoughts on them to you. Then you can present 2 more, etc. Calm, cool, collected, that’s my way. Quit laughing fluther people!