Yeah, you would, wouldn’t you? Still you’d be in error, as it is only tangentially related to tertium non datur.
Sounds fair to me, at least as long as you don’t get your vocals confused.
I was advocating for the middle ground on that.
Sounds like nutpicking (not to be confused with nitpicking):
Assuming that the argument being made is that only some of it’s points must be true, it can be reduced to some sort of ‘affirming a disjunct’ when the objection is that all of the points must be true. When the proposition is A or B but the objection is made that it should be A and B then an objection to an irrelevant argument is being made. But then again, the single questionable claim could still make the entire argument false because the details of each point may contain further relationships to other points.
requests a cite for everything because lack of a cite disproves the evidence and proves the opposite for which no evidence has been provided?
This response may be the ultimate classic of its genre, and I plan to frame it. 
There is the Fallacy Fallacy.
That a mistake in reasoning implies the claim must be false. This could include a questionable claim in the line of reasoning.
But that just means you can’t use the presence of a flaw in reasoning to claim the premise is actually false. Just that the reasoning doesn’t support the premise.
The Fallacy Fallacy is something of a last resort if you are trying to make a point.
If the questionable claim isn’t on the thread of reasoning and is just used to claim the source is unreliable and thus the rest of the otherwise unchallenged claims are invalid this might be viewed as a Genetic Fallacy.
My mother once found herself explaining to a visiting speaker at her debating society that introducing his talk might need another title than his proposal of “Historical Fallacies Exposed”
I’ve done something similar myself. HOw it usually goes is this:
- A poster provides a whole bunch of cites, in something of a Gish Gallop. They hope, I believe, to overwhelm their opponents.
- I look at the first cite, and find that it’s seriously flawed in some way.
- I respond by describing the flaws I see, and dismissing the entire post. Who has time to look at all the cites, when the very first one is garbage?
The cure for this is not for me to read all the cites in hopes that some of them are good. The cure is for the original poster to read all their cites to ensure that they’re only offering good cites.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in all]. A witness whose evidence can be shown to be wrong or mistaken in one detail casts doubt on all of his evidence.
I often offer a ton of cites, each supporting a separate link in the argument. I try to avoid You-tube videos and I grasp that opinions are opinions and facts are facts. If one cite gets shot down, sometimes the best thing is to concede the point and see where the logic takes us.
That takes argument to above middle school levels. Sometimes you can concede your opponent’s point and show that it doesn’t matter all that much. Another trick is to endeavor to master your ignorance and state your uncertainty when you step outside your wheelhouse.
Agree with LHoD, when a mix of cites are offered supporting a general position it’s a bad sign, worse when the citations are of dubious quality. In those cases it is legit to evaluate using a sampling approach. Best practice is to ostentatiously pick one of the better cites, noting that you skipped over the link to the Babylonian Bee.
I do think there’s a problem, though, with this. The ideal response to a cite is for other posters to read it, but most cites don’t get clicked, much less perused. If I’m going to ask someone to take a cite seriously, I need to be sure it’s a high-quality cite.
If you offer a ton of cites, that doesn’t excuse you from ensuring that each one is high-quality. If I click the first cite and find that it’s shoddy, I’ll feel like you’ve wasted my time, and won’t be inclined to click any more of them.
Note that that’s different from offering a controversial cite, one that can be interpreted in multiple ways. There, I might disagree with your interpretation, but acknowledge that it’s a legitimate interpretation.
Ok, I’d like to drill down, because I do this all the time.
One thing nice about Discourse is you can check whether people click your links, and typically for me they don’t. They might mouse over them. To be clear most of my links are highlight links like this one to wiki’s main page. Clicking them is optional. The reader would only click through if they dispute or are interested in the subpoint.
I generally agree - writers need to be held responsible for their claims and reader attention is limited - but I need some help with what exactly a shoddy link is. I’ll start a list.
- Your cite is fine, but it doesn’t say what you claim. This is an important one.
- Your cite sort of says what you claim, but the academic paper has caveats, disclaimers, and statements about the limitations of your analysis that you ignored. I wouldn’t call that shoddy, but writers should try to characterize their citations with accuracy. I sometimes tack on footnotes; I trust some readers roll their eyes at this.
- You linked to a conspiracy website.
- You linked to a you-tube vid.
- You linked to a you-tube vid and worse you didn’t indicate the minute and second that you are referring to.
I suspect LHoD has something else in mind though, and I encourage him (and anyone else) to add to the list.
That’s apparently no longer a widely accepted legal doctrine.
As far as relevancy to the Dope, I’d agree that if a poster uses a truly dubious cite or appears to deliberately misrepresent an important point raised in a cite, that may well be grounds to dismiss their argument.
On the other hand, if a poster presents several authoritative cites in support of their argument but an additional cite gets a fact wrong, seizing on that in attempt to dismiss their entire argument strikes me as dishonest. I’ve seen it happen here on multiple occasions.
It’s related to another unfavorite tactic, that of dismissing evidence by sneering at the source. Example: Trumpites attacking anything posted on fact-checking websites or major media (that isn’t Fox News). Or posters automatically disqualifying anything reported on Fox.
A good general rule is to factually refute the claim, then diss the source.
IMHO, if you think a cite is subpar, you have to produce a better cite, not just claim that someones cite is no good. Certainly if that cite is that bad, you should be able to produce a better one.
Also, the SDMB is not a formal debating club. Pointing out someone’s argument violated an informal fallacy does not disprove his argument. Certainly you can do so as a lead in for your counter -argument, but by itself is doesn’t do much.
Pretty standard here by posters who are unable to come up with a cite of their own. “One of your 4 cites is weak, in my opinion, thus I have disproved your entire point!” 
The first two are the ones I can think of. But right now I won’t give cites, because I don’t have them at hand. I can only offer my vague memories, and ask folks to take them with a grain of salt, because I may well be misremembering key elements.
There used to be a poster (this is in FQ, so I’ll leave out names) who hated public schools. Any time someone brought up the idea of funding them better, he’d trot out a study that he claimed showed that funding wouldn’t help. I finally read the whole study, and discovered that it was a casy study of a single district (IIRC) in which corrupt and incompetent administrators, put in charge of a court-mandated fortune, squandered it on frivolities, and the students didn’t benefit. It was nothing like a coherent study showing that funding wouldn’t help; if anything, it was a cautionary tale.
There was another poster who would make eloquent, legitimate-sounding claims, backed up with cites; but nearly every time I looked at them, they were not actually supporting the claims. One memorable incident showed that Elon Musk was actually saying something reasonable, based on a follow-up Tweet–but the follow-up tweet was from several years prior, and unrelated to the claim.
A third variety happened many years ago, when someone offered a theory about how Barack Obama was dumb, based on a long article impugning his intelligence. The article itself was long on innuendo and circumstantial claims, and short on any real evidence. I was curious about the author, so I looked at his credentials–and found out that he was Time’s Person of the Year for 2006, according to the author’s “about me” page. The only virtue I can ascribe to that author is chutzpah.
Any cites of these quality are, in my opinion, disqualifying: I’m unlikely to take any cites from a person seriously, if they offer cites like this, unless and until they apologize, retract, and make a plausible promise to do better going forward.
Pedantic, perhaps?
There’s a poster on another board who, no matter what many other people post, will have multiple links to peer-reviewed academic sites disproving, in one way or another, what the poster said. She especially does this to me, and yes, I have called her out on this more than once. She’s a mechanical engineer who went to law school, so go figure.
It’s a common question, not only on the straight dope: “What is this kind of fallacy called”. And the answer seems to always be that it’s an informal fallacy that doesn’t have a name, or doesn’t have a unique name.
Which in a way is just as well; because another recent trend IME has been people objecting to arguments by just throwing out the names of fallacies without proper justification.
Not that the OP is doing that…I relate absolutely with what he’s saying, I’m in a couple of gun control debates right now where my opponents are trying to land the “What is an assault weapon” gotcha…even though I was careful to not even use the term myself.
Generally speaking, I’d say a single bad citation won’t destroy your reputation with me, though it will damage it. A sequence of bad citations is another matter. Sufficient examples will resolve to assessment of a person’s character and it’s entirely reasonable to deweight evidence asserted by a demonstrably untrustworthy source. It is unreasonable to equate trustworthiness with agreement with a person’s point of view though: to do so would exhibit weak character.
To add another cautionary note, it is common here and especially elsewhere to assert without substantiation. That is its own kettle of mediocre practice.
It won’t destroy your reputation with me, but a single bad cite at the beginning of a post might mean I dismiss all the cites in the post, unless and until the poster cures their error.