It can be such an attempt: if, in order to continue discussing X, I have to refute such-and-such megabytes of text from an external link, that places an asymmetric burden on me.
It would be reasonable to say, “You’re coming in in the middle of an argument—the points you are trying to address are being discussed [here](URL)”, but “BOOK TITLE decisively proves my point” is another variation of the appeal to unquestionable authority.
I don’t know if that is usually an attempt to halt further conversation, as much as an attempt to shift the burden of evidence to the other party, but it sure seems to have the effect of closing down a line of argument. So it sounds like a distinct but related move.
Burden shifting language in general is almost always a sign either of two debaters having very different prior data or one or more of them being really irrational.
It seems to be designed, or at least hope to halt further conversation on a particular premise. I suppose if you use it on your actual conclusion then you are trying to halt further conversation. Essentially ‘that is wrong and easily verifiable, learn better’. That may be appropriate it in some of the cases (as with conversation halters in general).
Does that actually attempt to halt further conversation though?
It can be such an attempt: if, in order to continue discussing X, I have to refute such-and-such megabytes of text from an external link, that places an asymmetric burden on me.
It would be reasonable to say, “You’re coming in in the middle of an argument—the points you are trying to address are being discussed [here](URL)”, but “BOOK TITLE decisively proves my point” is another variation of the appeal to unquestionable authority.
Sometimes.
I don’t know if that is usually an attempt to halt further conversation, as much as an attempt to shift the burden of evidence to the other party, but it sure seems to have the effect of closing down a line of argument. So it sounds like a distinct but related move.
Burden shifting language in general is almost always a sign either of two debaters having very different prior data or one or more of them being really irrational.
It attempts to halt the sub-conversation that starts with, “How about some references?” E.g., this.
It seems to be designed, or at least hope to halt further conversation on a particular premise. I suppose if you use it on your actual conclusion then you are trying to halt further conversation. Essentially ‘that is wrong and easily verifiable, learn better’. That may be appropriate it in some of the cases (as with conversation halters in general).