On topic. I think it depends on the information. Factual information, design requirements, anything quantitative, anything that needs to be referred back to, should be communicated in writing. Justifications and decision making however is often best done face to face as the latency is kept to a minimum. Asking someone why did you take this decision, why that, how about, could we? over email takes a lot of time, whereas doing it face to face allows you to quickly bang through all the important questions and sign off on decisions.
Really important thing in these types of meetings is to have a note taker / scribe who is independent, or get an automated transcript so you can refer back, especially if you are working in an adversarial environment with competing interests / views.
Uhm, text never works flawlessly!
Direct face-to-face communication has the benefit of additional cues (facial expression) and ability to interrupt and explain any disagreements and misunderstandings right away.
Text has the benefit of being easily referenced (whether for clarification or historical referral), as you point out, and allows one to think through before replying (though that's not excluded from live conversation: "I need some time to process this").
As others point out, this means there is no universal answer: but it also means that for whatever tough decisions you need to communicate, it's best done with a live conversation, followed by a written note.
For family, friends, and personal relationships, there's nothing that replaces being together in the same time and place. But that's for conveying emotions, not only information.
I refute this claim explicitly.
Written communications which are competently complete are superior to face to face in that memory and real time interpretation fail in comparison to the availability of objectively empirical reference.
The operating imperative is “complete”, and that all sides are “competently” literate.