"[citation needed]"

Hatter

I hate this. I hate this so much. It's not even an argument - it's just a delaying tactic and ad hominem, phrased in a "look at me, I'm so hip and nerdy, I use Wikipedia and read xkcd" sort of way that makes me want to punch whoever uses it in the face.

It doesn't help that I know people in real life who use it. So even when I'm away from the internet and I'm talking about something I read with my friends, some asshole pipes up with "Citation needed!" and a smug fucking grin on his face. Fuck, I can't fucking hyperlink in real life conversation, what the fuck do you expect me to do?

Inb4 "[citation needed]." 

Malkavian

Fun fact: People expect you to back up your arguments with evidence.

ClockworkUniverse

I prefer to say "could I get a source on that?"

Much less dismissive.

Hatter

And I do - when I'm writing in a formal setting. And when someone asks for evidence, I'd prefer it if they actually asked, instead of phrasing it in that snide way. Especially if it's something that can be found with a single Google search. 

*EDIT: Like INUH just did. Thank you, INUH.

I never want someone to say it in real life, either. That's actually the biggest thing that pisses me off - if I reference an AP article or something, and someone says "Citation needed," it just drives me nuts.

MadassAlex

I like it, especially when debating human nature. So many people take a dull view on human nature and make negative assumptions of others that [citation needed] is simply the most efficient way to express both the flaws in their argument and my scorn.

ClockworkUniverse

I did say "citation needed" in real life once, but my friends and I were watching a completely insane conspiracy theory video that was just blatantly making stuff up, so I had comedic license.

DonZabu

I just say "pause".

captainbrass

I have seen "Discuss" used in this way in real life, because of the trope where school/university essay titles are phrased "[Firm statement of opinion]. Discuss." Like INUH's example. it is a bit less dismissive but indicates that whatever comment has been made isn't exactly uncontroversial and needs to be argued for.  

MillerCross

ad hominem

captainbrass

^ Yeah, strictly ad hominem is an argument openly based on the person you're arguing against - "He's a Nazi, so you can't take his views on the recorded output of Iron Maiden seriously." "Citation needed" can have snide undertones of "what an idiot!" but it's not actually ad hominem.

RedEyedAbyss

If your argument is firm, you should have little trouble at least pointing in the general direction of the source.

"I like it, especially when debating human nature. So many people take a dull view on human nature and make negative assumptions of others that [citation needed] is simply the most efficient way to express both the flaws in their argument and my scorn."

I think [citation needed] is effective in any context against extraordinary claims, because it hints that the claim is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence. Human nature is one of those things which most people will trot out as a premise with cherry-picked examples to support it, and that kind of argument is utter shit, so I expect at least some sociological backing.