From my experience, I've found that trolling and Socratic dialogue bring out the key points forthright and also highlight the most severe points of disagreement. That usually doesn't happen so fast when arguing with hard facts (when applicable). You can also hardly say that about a Wikipedia article or a propaganda poster/website/book.
It kind of makes the philosophy student in me worry to see trolling and Socratic dialogue offered as seeming equivalents. Though, I suppose Socrates was a damn good troll in his time.
"Better"? What, like an objective better which works for everyone? Maybe. Maybe there are better ways of learning coding than by watching videos, but it's still a good way to learn which works for some people.
More effective, certainly. Trolling invokes emotional reactions that, I think, drown out rational discussion. It's just taking cheap shots for amusement, with no real intention of gaining better understanding.
