Indeed, intelligent people can debate in good faith[1], without battering one another with sources. Since a source (or out of context snippet) can be found to support nearly any assertion, sources are not the end all. Often times, source ladden arguments devolve to a debate of source validity and authoritativeness. Which to me, is boring.
I suppose there should be a balance of source-citation, with sources preferred which establish a broadly-accepted concordance (such as a meta-study of studies) instead of a single study (in which case you would be correct).
To me, rational arguments are the leaps between facts established by evidence, so both are necessary to some degree.
In online conversations devoid of any citation, things seem to far too often veer into wild speculation, unsubstantiated opinion/belief, and most egregious, ad hominem/stereotyping/etc.
I was unaware of the Principle of Charity, thanks for educating me!
