Sometimes when debating, I imagine the other person might want sources. Most people don’t care because all they want to do is yell at me, but just in case I might meet someone reasonable, I’d like to be able to cite sources.
Sources are often hard to find. Even if I can remember where I heard something, it is not so easy to sift through hours of video (when I can even get access to the archives) from ten years ago to find what it is I’m talking about. When the original thing is never directly mentioned again, but countless sources confirm its existence by referring to it indirectly, something I consider common knowledge can be very hard to verify to a skeptic.
However, the biggest problem that sometimes happens is that when I look again at an old source to support my case, I find that it has changed! Then nobody believes me! Is this the Mandela effect in action?
Not necessarily. Sometimes news organizations will actually change old stories, as this video (if it still exists unedited) explains.
It has happened that bloggers and pundits often have article links making wildly inflammatory claims, but when I follow them I find that the articles are very mild and humble in their speculations. In the past, this normally caused me to stop taking the pundits seriously – but what if the article they link to actually changed? What if it really was wild at one time? Who can tell?