I don't think it's a silver bullet, but reading source material is often quite informative. Did he say anything else was important? I'd have to read the source

I don't think it's a silver bullet, but reading source material is often quite informative. Did he say anything else was important? I'd have to read the source material. Why did he say you should read the source material? Did he consider counter-arguments? Was his overall argument more nuanced? How did he come to the conclusion that you should read source material? Was this his main point, or a secondary point in a list of several different arguments? Honestly, a lot of academia seems like social media. People take a one-line summary and argue over the merits, often without any real idea of the source material.