In Defense of Idealism

In the Philosophy Toolkit, the claim is put forward that, in the debate of realism vs idealism, "the burden of proof rests with idealism." I would therefore like to begin a defense of idealism.

What is idealism? I think the debate might have been misframed in the toolkit. Idealists would not "outright reject the notion that we can know something about a world external to our own minds." Well, perhaps some would, but certainly not ALL. Idealism, as I understand it (and it may be wrong) would simply be the concept that there is some spiritual or otherwise otherworldly force that guides the world we know, be it a God, an all-consuming consciousness, or even a world of forms, as Plato suggested.

It would seem to me that idealism serves as a necessary counterbalance to claims of realists. Idealism gives us a necessary feeling of purpose, a reason to suppose that perhaps there is some larger guiding principle to our lives, be it a God or a collective unconscious that connects us in ways that we may not ever be consciously aware of. Realistic examination of the world can explain HOW it works, but it cannot offer an answer to WHY. Idealism serves this purpose.

Perhaps the greatest advantage to idealism is that it can serve as a guide to realism. With an ideal form, an ideal system of government, we can take the ideal and attempt to implement what we can in the real world. And would it not be just a tad idealistic to purpose theories on how the world functions, even if we then temper these ideas with comparisons to the real world?

Further, the claim that "common sense ... favor[s] a fallibilist version of realism" is, I think, an extremely tenuous claim. The very concept of "common sense" is steeped in sociocultural understandings that render the term practically useless in philosophical debate. What may be "common sense" to one philosopher may be utter rubbish to another. The claim would seem to only support a further implication of the weakness of idealism without any sort of substance to be made for the claim.

To end with a question: can the debate between two seemingly contradictory concepts, like realism vs idealism, ever be brought to a definitive victory for one side?