One of the things I’ve not done on this blog that I intended to was to look at the nature of political dicussion itself – how each side tends to talk past each other, talking about different issues as though they were opposed.

Classic case in point: Smacking. One side talks about child abuse, the other side talks about parents – but is also worried about child abuse. So one side isn’t even really discussing the issue at hand.

But there’s a debate at Patterico’s blog which is a true debate. Two commenters agreed to terms to argue the role of Rev. Wright on Obama’s campaign. Interesting stuff.

Well, it would be interesting if the left had showed up with something useful to say.

DRJ and Levi: “We each agree to provide 10 substantive comments, each with a link to facts.”

DRJ:

Levi, here is my well thought out position. Here is a link to prove what I am saying. And here is another link. Finally, here is more persuasive argumentation with even more links.

Levi:

Says you.

So, it’s not really worth reading, and DRJ, I’m sorry you wasted your time. Except that you didn’t, in two meaningful ways: 1) you demonstrated that the concerns about Barack Obama’s ties to Rev. Wright are genuine, and 2) you saved me twenty bucks, which is what I would have had to pay Levi if he had followed the rules.

Having read the whole thing, I reverse my initial impression and agree Patterico – Levi doesn’t bother to argue the case, while DRJ takes the time to put together some very convincing arguments and tries to counter the meager fare put up by her opposition.

You can read the discussion here and tell me what you think.