I was the last to post on this before it fell of the radar screen. Apparently I killed the discussion.
The thrust of my long post above is simple. Idealism and realism are not merely two analogous approaches to problems, but are two different stages of analysis. Idealism is concerned primarily with what would be best, regardless of practicality. Realism immediately puts aside considerations of the ideal in favor of doing something that will work.
When it comes to debates, we tend to debate realism if we have good factual knowledge of the issues. If we lack knowledge of the facts, we tend to take a more idealist approach. It is implied here that facts defeat idealism. This is not necessarily true. There are many barriers to the implementation of ideas that are quite real. Realist ideas work within those constraints. Idealist ideas attempt to destroy them, which is more difficult.
I feel as though I'm lapsing into some kind of rambling, e/n post, so I'll leave it at that.