Sort of; if the other party is making clear what evidence he’s looking for to disprove his thinking, I think its fair — especially when his ideas run counter to the norm (which naturally people put a lot of belief in, with nothing to support it, because everyone else believes in it). Ofc, if he just counters everything with citation needed, its pointless.

But in this case, evidence was requested for a particular idea, and the response was completely tangential to the request. And it wasn’t really an issue of citation needed, I think, so much as just anything to support the idea that colleges actually offer non-job value (and that they offer courses across multiple fields is insufficient, which is true, its a thing they’re doing but says nothing about effectiveness).

Ofc, the difference is in the intent. And the problem I have with “its not my job” is the intent; it’s a belief/defense whose primary purpose/outcome is to kill communication, and I very much like communicating

I see where you're coming from, but it's good to impose the burden of proof on the person making the claim. If the person making the claim can't be bothered to dig up any supporting information, neither can others. It keeps the quality of discussion higher than otherwise.

One one or two occasions, when I was about to post something, I looked for evidence, and realised I was mistaken, and didn't mislead others.