Debate fora allow little space to explain issues. You want a good answer. Sometimes that involves more than just a few paragraphs. Sometimes an issues been explained by others, in essays or YouTube videos, that would save me an hour of composition.
If you have ever read a scientific journal, or a philosophical treatise, or a simple literary theists, then you should know that the basics of a position can be outlined in a few paragraphs by anyone who understands what they are saying well enough. Explicit details and arguments may take volumes; but a
basic thru line of reasoning should always be condensable to five paragraphs or fewer. If it takes longer, you are probably conflating about two or more separate subjects.
Don't believe me? Read the abstract and methodology sections of papers in journals of science or philosophy.
Quibbling about source formats leads me to believe that understanding an issue isn't the goal of the interrogator.
You may see it as quibbling, but I see offloading your interlocutor to a third party
before establishing that you have a basic understanding of the subject and position that you are schilling as being the proverbial Big Ol' Red Flag
.
You are free to see this as unreasonable or out of line. I won't try to force you.