My main frustration in debates about politics and economics is the difficulty many of those I argue with have in admitting my points. Often on Facebook, for example, I will make a point, someone will respond critically, and I'll respond to that point. If I'm persuaded, my response is something like "Touche." (I learned that line from Leland Yeager when he taught a course at UCLA in 1975. Leland was, and probably still is, great at admitting it when you had a good argument against him.) And then I move on. If I'm not persuaded but I think I'm right and I seem to have answered the other person's point, a response from that person is often--nothing. No admission of a mistake on his part. I've been thinking
David Henderson considers the following as important: moral reasoning
This could be interesting, too:
David Henderson writes Is Hiring Jews Evidence of anti-Semitism?
David Henderson writes Can YouTube Censor?
Contributing Guest writes Attacking Civilians in War
Scott Sumner writes Robert Frost and liberalism