zlacker

Citing sources doesn't solve the problem either. There will always be bias.

The solution is for each participant to think critically of their beliefs. There is no way to make that happen. Moderation is the next best thing.

>>thomas+(OP)
Citing sources doesn't solve the problem on its own, but we're in such a poor state at the moment that it (and other very basic changed) would still be a massive improvement.

You already get people citing things they clearly haven't read, but again, that's still better than not even citing something as it gives a basis to work towards the truth.

>>ZeroGr+tg
I've been in plenty of discussions where a cited source exists as a basis to work toward nothing.

It's a common tactic to use citations to get the person you are arguing with to walk in circles. It's a war of attrition: eventually the other party gives up on deconstructing and criticizing your citations, and you claim victory. This is closely related to the "ball is in your court" fallacy.

But if both parties are actually invested in critical thought, citations can be an opportunity instead of a roadblock. That still requires the effort of everyone involved.