I disagree with you. You disagree with me. That's fine. On this occasion it's a failure to agree on whether someone's opinion should be supportable, etc.Himmy, I don't think compulsory verification was required until you came along.
It was and is a forum - really just like a chat in a pub.
If someone writes something you regard as wrong then just comment "I don't think that's correct" and give evidence if you want to - or not.
That will raise doubts in the minds of anyone reading both and if they are interested they can look it up.
If you merely disagree with someone's opinion then all you can do is disagree as it is their opinion right or wrong.
If you are that upset by written untruths, then I think it would be more beneficial to society if you crusaded against them (untruths) in newspapers; here - it doesn't really matter.
But If I say something like, " USA has gone to war again in South America!" You'd expect some sort of evidence or supporting information to justify my opinion.
I might have meant, 'gone to war on drug growers', 'gone to war on tax evaders' or some other type of war.
But you wouldn't just be satisfied with, "no they haven't" and you would quite rightly expect me to provide some supporting evidence to justify my opinion. Or at least an explanation of exactly what I meant.
But all we get from FO is, "I'm right and I won't provide any supporting evidence to justify my assertions."
In my opinion, a simple, "you're wrong" is insufficient. Otherwise we'd have pages and pages of childish: "Yes!", "No!", "I'm right!", "No you're not, I am!".
That might satisfy you, but it doesn't satisfy me.
It would be utterly pointless and none of us would be any the wiser, more learned or benefited in any way.