Regarding "wars argument" - thanks, I will do that soon.
Here is my thinking, Krugman's criticism is mentioned 8 times in a article. It is intellectual dishonesty (and one  of character) to loudly criticize one school of thought and than refuse to even debate for an hour with an actual austrian economist; where he has debated with politicians "to boost his book sales" in his own words. So if his critic is in any way or form relevant, why not settle it once for all and end with austrians, or if he doesn't want to lose his time on irrelevant things, he has humanitarian incentive (or why call out austrians in a first place?)...  So all in all, it comes to this, either criticizer and critic is irrelevant and should be deleted, or what is in my opinion far better solution, this discrepancy should be there for readers to know and decide for themselves. This could be done in one or two sentences, just a note that he refuses the offer of debate from 2010 although 105 000$ fund for Food bank New York was established; + a link to site.