There's a debate tactic where one side repeats "you need citations" for even the most basic facts. What's a way to describe this behavior?
Asked
Active
Viewed 87 times
0
-
Maybe just *sceptical? Presumably the reason someone would ask for "citations" is because they don't believe you. But they would* perhaps be prepared to believe what you're saying if you could cite authoritative sources to back it up. Of course, maybe the person saying you need citations is just looking for any excuse to reject your arguments - perhaps they're just *nit-picking*. – FumbleFingers Jun 08 '23 at 16:16
-
Personally, I wouldn't have much time for You need citations in a formal debate context. Anyone who adopts that position is likely to start attacking the credibility of your references, rather than dealing with the validity of your arguments. Effectively, it just invites "ad hominem" attacks, rather than reasoned debate. – FumbleFingers Jun 08 '23 at 16:20
-
2Stalling, blocking, perhaps close to filibustering: all designed to interrupt the flow of the speaker. – Weather Vane Jun 08 '23 at 17:56
-
1I think that may fall under the umbrella of "bad faith argumentation" – user888379 Jun 08 '23 at 18:08
-
1@Lambie others are in 10 Bullying Debate Techniques From Ben Shapiro – Weather Vane Jun 08 '23 at 19:00
-
"Reductio ad absurdum" or "Objection, your Honor - badgering the witness." – Yosef Baskin Jun 08 '23 at 20:40
-
1It's definitely a type of what is known as trivial objections, nitpicking, or hair-splitting but it's not the only type of that sort of argument. Not sure there's a more precise term for it. It's also not quite Just Asking Questions/JAQing off. – Stuart F Jun 08 '23 at 20:56
-
What's a "citation"? – Hot Licks Jun 09 '23 at 13:41
-
A possible way to settle the debate: supply just one citation that explains the guidelines of what needs to be cited or not. E.g., for Wikipedia, that is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge If both sides agree to the same guidelines, then the debate may continue in a fair and civil way. "OK, I need a source for X, but then you also need a source for Y." Etc. – Brandin Jun 09 '23 at 14:28
-
Perhaps a duplicate: What is the term for someone who is very particular about the small details?. Pedantic, fastidious, fussy, picky, persnickety [attitude]; nitpicking ... are offered there. Hopefully, these hypernymic terms won't be repeated in answers here. What is a good adjective for hyper-attentive to detail? adds 'over-fastidious'. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 10 '23 at 13:50
2 Answers
1
Perhaps, they are a pedant?
NOUN a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning
pe·dan·tic [pɪˈdantɪk] ADJECTIVE excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous: "his analyses are careful and even painstaking, but never pedantic"
Curiosity
- 315
0
I would call that person deficient in what they do because of their sceptical and overzealous way of asking for citations for every little thing as you stated.
However, if you are planning to say that to their face, you should just say that the person is being overzealous (too devoted or excited) and absurd.
