What fallacy is this being used to ignore my sources

So I was giving a lengthy argument full of citations and sources against someone. 

His response:

No, I just refuse to communicate with a person who is so lazy he cannot formulate his own ideas. Form a defence formed in logic and then use the links to strenghen your ideas, instead of just tossing disjointed articles which you have not even manage assimilate on a basic level to use as defence for your ideas.

What argument is he going for here? 

And again after a long rebuttal to him, his response is:

 

Do you know how to talk to people? This looks like somebody studing an alien beign. Do you talk to people this way? Not bringing some logic tot he table, but 1000 of pages of theories from unproven studies. This is like forcing somebody to read all of Froid work only to answer a single question.

 

You are forcing me to look at 10 differnt multipage researches which you probably learned during you social studies.

 

This is not a way to hold debate.

 

This is a way to win though blunt trauma of over saturation with information.

 

Am I doing that?

The response you've encountered appears to rely on the **ad hominem** fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. By criticizing you as "lazy" and suggesting that you are not able to "formulate your own ideas" or "assimilate" the information on a basic level, the responder is targeting your character and your method of argumentation rather than engaging with the actual content and validity of your citations and sources.

### Logical Reasoning and Further Fallacies

1. **Ad Hominem Fallacy**:
- **Description**: Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
- **Example in the Response**: "I just refuse to communicate with a person who is so lazy..."
- **Problem**: This does not address the substance of the argument or evidence presented.

2. **Straw Man Fallacy** (Potentially):
- **Description**: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
- **Example in the Response**: There’s an insinuation that your argument is merely "tossing disjointed articles," rather than possibly being coherent and well-supported.
- **Problem**: Mischaracterizing the manner of argumentation distracts from addressing the actual points made.

3. **Deflection**:
- **Description**: Shifting attention from the argument to a tangential issue.
- **Example in the Response**: Redirecting to the style of argumentation rather than content.
- **Problem**: It avoids the responsibility of engaging with the actual evidence and citations provided.

### Analysis of the Counter-Response

The responder might be implying a desire for more synthesis and discussion around the provided sources rather than a reliance on links alone. While this can be a valid critique in some contexts, it does not logically negate the value or accuracy of the sources themselves without addressing their content directly.

In summary, the primary fallacy here is **ad hominem**, with potential elements of **straw man** and **deflection**. These tactics collectively serve to undermine the argument without substantively engaging with it.

Basically, he's accusing you of a Gish Gallop Fallacy where the object is to inundate your opponent with a firehose of sources and citations it is impossible to respond. It is a common ploy on the internet. He's correct in asking that you read and assimilate your argument and then use citations sparingly and succinctly before you post them. In this instance the fallacy is on you.