Maverick has a post here, which I haven't had time to give full attention to. He says that my infinite regress argument against truthmakers is 'breathtakingly rotten'. This wrongly implies there can be degrees of goodness or badness in arguments. Not true: an argument is either valid, or it is not. All invalid arguments are equally bad, and all valid arguments equally good. And I think my argument is perfectly valid, as follows.
1. There are truthmakers (assumption)
2. If the truthmaker for 'A exists' is not A itself, this leads to a contradiction (by infinite, vicious regress)
3. The truthmaker for 'A exists' is not A itself
4. (Contradiction) Therefore there are no truthmakers
It seems clear that Vallicella accepts consequence (2), but rejects assumption (3). So he accepts the argument is valid, and therefore (by implication) accepts that it is good, and therefore not 'breathtakingly rotten'. Whether (3) is true or false is a separate argument, and I haven't seen any such argument against it, nor any replies to my arguments for it.
A separate thread of the debate, which he refers to in that post, is whether the notion of a truthbearer implies the notion of a truthmaker. I think it does, but haven't given any conclusive arguments for this, yet.