What blogs do you read?
Many of them have lively comments sections and forums where the discussion continues after the initial post has been made. Even in cases where there are no comments, they're still adding to the discussion by picking apart or reinforcing arguments made in other venues.
The discussion also occurs between blogs. Blog A posts something and Blog B responds, with a handful of others adding to it. It may lack the compact neatness of a of one-on-one back-and-forth at a podium, but the debate is most certainly there. Don't dismiss them out of hand.
Yes I have followed some blogs sporatically, though honestly there are none I go back to consistantly. I can't speak for all of them as I obviously have not read all of them, I can only talk about what I have viewed.
The basic structure starts with an event, rarely is it derived from the author completely, just pondering on an issue and bringing it up. It'll start by quoting something they disagree with, or a news report they want to give their 2 cents on, or another blog, most likely, someone of the opposite view.
The last two are all well and fine, but it's not an argument in and of itself, though it can be morphed to it through the comment section, which I'll get to later. In the case of a news report, if it's something important and controversial, their opinion can be easily compared to many others that'll be out there. If it's just something the author brings out of the blue, which to me is more interesting, it's usually something of their own perspective, though it's rarely anything new added and they rarely put anything out that someone with 15 minutes of pondering and responding couldn't tear through.
In the case of a response type blog, the responses rarely actually counter the original. They simply deconstruct it, and then mock it, without ever citing exact reasons.
Then you get the comment sections. Here's the facts:
All these blogs are allied to some political philosophy. There's no neutral battlegrounds. Those who agree with the general views of the author, the steady readers, agree with what they say, and generally as an attitude view themselves as the people who "have the right to be there," and view dissenting opinions as trolls who should go piss off. It's not entirely unfounded, as often those people are in fact trolls, who don't put forth any real counter argument, but rather, are SO confident in their own right-ness that they'll just post something immature. Which is countered by equally immature responses.
So in general, I find the scene unsatisfying. I'll continue this line of thought as a response to the next post.
Socialism is an ideal I don't altogether disagree with on a philosophical level, but with the current realities of humanity's situation relative to planet Earth, it's simply undoable. It's something to think about in the future, if we can achieve a state without severe limits to natural resources, land and a need for a labor force to actually sustain humanity. The problem being that once we reach a state of equilibrium, in "good times" we have huge population growths, until we hit the point yet again that capitalism, survival of the fittest is required. To me socialism is putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalalala" trying to ignore basic reality in hopes that an idealistic world will build itself.
Specifically, what conduit of discussion do you approve of?
If you ever read the older public debates, before the change of the century, they have much more substance. I would like to see something like that, where everything isn't dominated by network constraints, and the candidates engage each other, instead of read prepared remarks to the camera. If you're asking about on this, public level, like on the internet, I've found the only interesting debates I ever found myself were in message boards that had nothing to do with politics - as the ones that do, always have an agenda prior, and consider anyone not following that agenda, by definition, someone who doesn't belong there.
I have no interest engaging in any debates where it's everyone versus me, but even worse, to have everyone on my side against a single person.
