I don't mean to limit this question exclusively to Shi'a->Sunni arguments, but it was directly prompted by the recent question,
- According to shia, (by relying on Sunni sources), What evidences prove that the Prophet(s) appointed Imam Ali as his successor, at Qadir-Khum?
For the sake of argument and simplicity, I will stick with these denonyms for this post, but it should be assumed to apply to any cases where a post is written under or expecting answers from one exclusive perspective but explicitly calling out that evidences used are also (or should be) accepted by those who follow perspectives that do not accept that same premise and/or conclusion.
I have seen this pattern come up often on this site, from the very earliest days of beta, where an otherwise good answer would be explicitly written from a Shi'ite perspective, but arguments would often include (almost as an afterthought in many cases) something along the lines of "Both Shia and Sunni scholars allow…," "According to Shia and many Sunni sources…," or "Even many Sunni scholars agree…."
More extreme cases, such as those asked for in the above-linked question, would include large lists of hadiths and scholarly opinions "from Sunni books" which confirm the Shi'ite opinion.
Even when you consider that certain evidences can be accepted in both Shi'ite and Sunni jurisprudence, for the purposes of this site is there any value to explicitly calling out — or especially to limiting such evidences to — "Sunni sources"?