[adorno]

Links are generally necessary when you are proving a point and backing it up.

Ever hear of providing a sample of the text and not the entire article or the link to the contents. I don't need no stinking links. I provide all that's needed, after having read so many of the same type articles and so many opinions. It's wasteful and confusing and depressing to have to read through so much tripe.

When people have a personal conversation directly, they don't pull out a book of links to prove any point or opinion.

[blitz128]

Disagree, providing a “sample of the text ” may be valid or it may be taken out of context. Providing the link shows the context

Because I say so is not a legitimate debate technique and why papers must have citations.

I have read and listened to many people who make compelling points, many here on FR, but when you check them out, fact check if you will, even their compelling arguments turn out to be false

Example. On many instances people here make claims and I simply ask “what is your source” and the most common response is “I am not your researcher “. If they had provided the source then I could check them and it out and confirm the source to be good or not. By not providing source, monetized or not, then your claims are just so much hot air

Zalinsky mansion story is just one example, just a little digging and you find those claims to be false, but people are still out their “claiming” is is fact

That is why a peer reviewed paper is considered more factual than one that is not
But hey just my 2 cents