Air assassination today includes drones, of course . . .
"Look, the process I am describing has very obvious value. It is what makes a debate informative and useful, and keeps it from degenerating into a meaningless series of unsupported and therefore pointless counter-assertions. If you assert X and I simply contradict you, well, what is the point of that? Contradiction is not disproof. But if I demand a cite and you provide one, then I am informed, and anyone else following the debate is informed, of the content of your cite (regardless of whether it actually supports your assertion). If I demand a cite and you reply with a good logical argument as to why none is necessary, we all are informed of the content of your argument. If I demand a cite and you simply fail to provide one, we all are informed that you're just talking out your ass. In any event, we all learn something. Is that not far preferable to an endless string of no-you're-the-poopyheads?"