Pretty much, yes: put it in context.
I'm a politician. I argue with people about policy online. I'm also trying to write a book about basic economics, similar to Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics: Fifth Edition" but shorter and with better-reasoned conclusions (Sowell seems to analyze everything one level deep and draw macroeconomics from ceteris parabus single-variable supply-and-demand reasoning).
Direct debate seems to interest people. For example: Sowell reasons that minimum wage artificially raises price of labor, thus increasing labor supply while reducing labor demand, thus permanently maintaining high unemployment rates. I've placed this against Fanati and Manfredi (2003), along with Malthus and Keynes, arguing that higher labor costs raise prices and thus reduce quantity demanded of goods, thus quantity demanded of labor, thus jobs, leading to reduced supply of labor through changing fertility decisions, retirement decisions, and migrant labor decisions.
Sowell is seen as a Conservative economist, and the conclusions I've drawn support more Liberal and Progressive arguments. Progressives have often argued that raising minimum wage *creates* jobs, while I've argued that a higher minimum wage—as a larger portion of the per-capita income—constrains labor force growth, leading to similar unemployment rates while resulting in lower populations over time and tighter concentration of wealth into the fewer workers's hands: higher minimum wage means fewer, wealthier workers.
By reasoning about such issues directly, I challenge the devotees of Sowell, Friedman, and Hayek, while also giving Progressive- and Liberal-minded folks a basis from which to argue. You might notice I've *also* challenged the Progressive position that minimum wage increases *create* jobs—it's plainly wrong—and I've also made complex observations about welfares and social insurances, notably about welfare creating unemployment (if welfare is strong versus minimum wage, rational decisions about fertility can increase the labor force even as employment-gated access to the means of sustenance falls), and welfare stasis (welfare creates jobs, and then is withdrawn immediately as unemployment falls, holding a local economy in poverty by preventing it from coupling with the surrounding economy and self-sustaining).
Make the economics contextual, and build the foundation for that context. A lot of these observations offend both ends of the philosophical spectrum, while also supporting both ends. This combines validation with education.
Of course, it only really works when you can make correct observations that draw such interest.
