That's the point. In print you can cite your sources. Meanwhile, in verbal debates you can make up whatever you like and things happen to fast for anything to

That's the point. In print you can cite your sources. Meanwhile, in verbal debates you can make up whatever you like and things happen to fast for anything to be verified. A study in Berkeley where they followed university-level debate-teams in 1996 by Liebowitz and Gagne[1] found that about 63% of the verifiable "facts" used in this format were inaccurate, generally trivially so but nobody noticed. Likewise, it's easier to deceive somebody in verbal formats than in print. Canadian pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research tracks misinformation with a "misinformation index" where he polls people about provably false statements. People who primarily consume audio or video news, rather than reading it, across all political lines, reliably score lower on this "misinformation index".[2] [1][2] I'm making this stuff up and if this was a verbal debate you probably wouldn't know that, whereas in this format you can trivially Google these things. Graves does write about Misinformation Index but has not done anything about print vs audio.