No,
that is
exactly why it's dishonest. Making claims and expecting people to accept them without that you supply any evidence for said claims is propaganda.
Propaganda is a one-way street, not a discussion. It does not lead to all parties involved gaining any knowledge or wisdom from the discussion, but instead to one party indoctrinating the other parties with his/her own vision/ideology/opinions. I think the current state of the US American society — and of large parts of Europe — would be evidential enough of how and why indoctrination and propaganda are bad.
Fairness dictates that if you have an opinion which would disrupt the natural flow of the discussion because of any objectionable qualities associated with the sources being cited in the discussion, then you should either present the evidence as justification for the disruption of said discussion, or refrain from disrupting the discussion altogether in the first place. If you do not provide a verifiable justification for why you are disrupting a discussion, then all you will have brought
to the discussion is the very disruption itself.
In the Dutch language, we have an expression for that, which translates to English as
"throwing a stick into the hen house." And that's exactly what a troll would do. Not that I'm calling you a troll, of course. I am merely confronting you with the dishonesty of your tactic, because I believe that you yourself may not even be aware of this dishonesty, given that — as I said higher up already — it isn't the first time you do this.
I distinctly remember that not too long ago, you were full of prejudice on account of both Abby Martin as an individual and RT as a news network — even though Abby Martin hasn't even been working for RT anymore in years — and that, after I confronted you about your prejudices, you had to admit that you had been wrong, and especially on account of Abby Martin.
Don't be silly.