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:
Scott Sumner writes It’s blackmail all the way down
David Henderson writes Pride and Prejudice and Violence
Scott Sumner writes How should we think about Russian meddling in the 2016 election?
Scott Sumner writes Tonto’s perspective