I don't think they're arguing against the use of citations in general, but just pointing out that anyone with sufficient motivation acting in bad faith can find something official looking that seems to support their opinion.
How about in-between: Not provide a citation until a claim is disputed, then go into a "let's weigh and vote on the citations that support A or B, and go with the one that has the most".
My big problem and theory of what will be the downfall of Wikipedia: No Original Research.
That would lead to levels of stone walling so extreme that no one would actually bother engaging. We already have that right now, with editors treating some articles like fiefdoms and being very combative to any change. Usually using pedantry or the revert rules. Imagine if you could just make any claim, and then there needs to be a process just to disprove it. Plus with the 3 revert rule it would basically turn the entire website into hell.
