Debating using external resources is vital and necessary because we rely on external information because we don't produce our own information (other then our own observations - science by definition) because we don't have the time, tools, or resources to attain such.
External links are indeed necessary.
My words were, "debating via exclusive link-posting is pointless because people posting the links are under no obligation to understand what it is they are posting." The idea is that you state what it is you are talking about and provide some evidence. Clearly that is where it is appropriate to cite an external source.
If you think that this sort of debating -- the proper sort -- is going to expose the fact that there's a lot you don't know, you have two choices: a.) Go and learn. b.) Don't debate about things you don't understand.
If you want people to watch your videos, there are plenty of places for you to post them. The problem is that you let them do the talking for you and when someone posts information that shows them to be wrong, as I have done here about oil, you don't read it (as apparently you have not done) or you don't bother trying to engage with it, and instead just post the same video again and again. Other comments you made in your post also suggest that you have not carefully read the rest of the thread. Please do so if you want to continue discussing here, as I have already repeated myself enough times with CTD, it's getting rather silly.
By the way, talking about oil is a great big whalloping red herring. This thread is about the flood and I've restated my point enough about biomass that it should be clear now. Do you not have anything else to say about evidence for the flood? I listed quite a few things in my first two posts.
