Some people believe that face to face communication is always more powerful than written communication. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give your own opinion and include relevant examples

There is an interesting difference of opinion amongst commentators as they often dispute the most potent communication methodology. A few opt human to human interaction as the best method as it builds trust, while others disagree with it as a written format elicits some support in the form of a record. I, however, agree most with the former lot, as I feel eye to eye vocal interaction entrusts the listener with confidence in the speaker. Woman-to woman interactive session, which involves hand gestures, body movement, vocal cords exchange and eye contact, instils trust amongst the audience as the presenter has an opportunity to express his intent convincingly. Despite the above convincing arguments, another supporting idea warrants discussion. How can one fully commit to outright favouring eye-to-eye discussion as the most compelling communication when written language aids in recording the details contained within dialogue? Experts acknowledge how solely verbal communication leaves the window open to mistakes in information due to the voids in memory; however, email avoids this fatality since it remains available to revisit and review. For example, the previously referenced promoted colleague avoided a conflict situation because a secretary transcribed a verbal meeting, which revealed the meeting location. This influential tool of reexamining the written conversation explains why the written word deserves some support. Of course, communication will occur in written and verbal context, but if one seeks an exchange that contains power and force, chose dialogue face-to-face. We should not underestimate the benefits provided through the written word, but overall, communicating in person embodies more impact.