I think it's a fair question. Based on my years debating, whenever a user posts sources, the other users are usually never persuaded. It may persuade a few viewers, but typically, if you watch closely, you'll discern a general pattern when a source is posted. It's either ignored entirely, questioned, or countered with another source until both users get frustrated.
I'm currently amassing a written notebook of multiple credible sources, organized by issues(general arguments and counters are listed as well).
Basically, is it worth it if it virtually never persuades the opponent?