Appeal to authority is not an argumentative fallacy. Appealing to a false authority is. For instance, appealing to the authority of a Ph.D. in quantum physics is perfectly fine to do when the topic is quantum physics. Appealing to that same authority about the law is not.
It appears your understanding of what “trolling” is mirrors your understanding of argumentative fallacies.
Appealing to authority is not a weak basis for an argument. It’s as if you don’t understand the role of expertise. Almost everything you know comes from knowledge discovered by experts. I suppose when you read a paper you don’t like sources being cited.
I didn’t uncharitably read what you wrote. You asked if I had a real argument to give because, apparently, you think getting knowledge/facts from an expert and citing said facts is not a real argument. The only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote is that you think citing an expert in their area of expertise is not a valid (“real”) arguement.
It appears your understanding of what “trolling” is mirrors your understanding of argumentative fallacies.