You don't need to give all the evidence and examples to convey what the argument actually is. That's why it's a summary: you don't have to be as thorough as the original.
Once someone knows what the argument is, they can decide whether it's something they've heard before, or already agree with, or want to know this or that point is supported. You don't get that from "he rips apart that argument, trust me".
Well, this discussion is just not going to go anywhere since you're ignoring the context of it.
It was me linking to my friends in my sign-off post on social network accounts and I was informing friends that if they wanted a summary of what I thought without having to contact me or listen to me rant for 30+ minutes, they could read a paper I agreed with or talk to me directly.
It doesn't, but to support it with evidence and examples, it does. That is what makes an argument/position robust and harder to discredit/disprove.