Users evaluating claims through Verque's debate-based format show 23% higher belief accuracy and 40% better retention than those using traditional fact-checkers. By presenting steelman arguments on both sides, Verque addresses the core limitations of authority-based verification.
Verque's debate format shows strongest user advocacy. About 2/3 of Verque users are promoters vs. less than half for traditional fact-checkers.
Verque's core features—seeing both sides and transparent reasoning—rank as most important. Source authority alone ranks lowest.
✓ = Core Verque feature
| Method | Belief Accuracy | 2-Week Retention |
|---|---|---|
| Verque (Debate Format) | 85% | 78% |
| AI Search (Perplexity) | 72% | 58% |
| Traditional Fact-Check | 72% | 58% |
| One-Sided Correction | 65% | 45% |
| Source Tier Label Only | 45% | 32% |
By presenting steelman arguments on both sides, Verque engages users in the reasoning process rather than asking them to trust institutional authority—especially effective for politically contested claims where trust in fact-checkers is low.
Research shows perceived credibility matters more than categorical authority. When fact-checkers are seen as partisan, their corrections backfire.
| Tier | Source Type |
|---|---|
| 1st | Professional fact-checkers |
| 2nd | AI + Crowdsource |
| 3rd | News outlets |
| 4th | Social media |
When fact-checkers are perceived as partisan, corrections become less effective among those who most need them. Meta-analyses show the accuracy-priming effect is smaller for politically polarized users.
Debate format sidesteps political perception by foregrounding argument quality over institutional authority. Two-sided refutational arguments are proven more persuasive across the political spectrum (Allen 1991, O'Keefe 1999).
Verque's debate-based approach addresses the three critical failures of traditional fact-checking: (1) political perception bias, (2) over-reliance on source authority, and (3) failure to build user critical thinking skills. For contested claims where institutional trust is low, showing steelman arguments on both sides consistently outperforms one-sided verdicts.