The first Democratic debate, held last week at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas, was, refreshingly, more a clash of ideas than one of personalities, though it did not lack for interesting characters either. Last week’s contest was well-moderated, focused, and as incisive as can be imagined in today’s world of endlessly on-message politicians—a remarkable feat when compared to the last two Republican debates, which more closely resembled reality television-style prize fights than substantive discussions. The relatively small number of participants and their choice to focus on their policies, not their celebrity, made it far more informative. CNN, the host of the debate, deserves its share of the credit, too: The hard hitting questions, on-the-fly fact checking, and Anderson Cooper’s refusal to settle for the usual political tropes were all vital.

This debate, despite its flaws, showed what a model debate should look like. Compare the question asking Republican candidates to raise their hand if they would consider running as a third party with CNN’s query about the Democratic candidates’ support of capitalism. One was clearly designed to isolate Donald Trump over a procedural matter of political theater; the other sought to ferret out differences about the fundamental nature of our economic system. It is a remarkable effect of Bernie Sanders’s campaign and the tenor of the race overall that capitalism genuinely seemed to be up for debate.

Indeed, the discussions in this debate were about the budget, trade, the cost of college, and other similarly substantive issues. There was, of course, a discussion of the candidates’ backgrounds and experiences, but those focused on the qualities needed in a president, rather than insults and name-calling. Whether you agree with him or not, Senator Sanders’s remark that policy matters more than Secretary Clinton’s “damn emails” was memorable; it was also representative of the spirit of the debate.

We hope that other networks took notes and will focus on creating more civil, substantive Republican debates in the future. The debate allowed candidates to shine—they demonstrated passion but also expertise, principles but also policies, smoothness but also depth. It was a credit to the candidates, a credit to CNN, and a credit to our civil discourse to see the big ideas as the subject of the conversation.

Anderson Cooper also stood out as a dispassionate moderator. He challenged candidates, calling out their hypocrisy and following up when needed. Other journalists, like Megyn Kelly, have also done this well, but the scale of the debate enabled Cooper to do it particularly effectively. Moreover, he focused the questions so that the candidates did not devolve into ad hominem attacks.

Regardless of political beliefs, it is difficult to argue that this was not a more civil debate than the two Republican contests. It was about the issues, not the personalities; the moderator helped shape the debate, not dictate it. The debate set the standard for the coming debates, both Democratic and Republican—hopefully our political discussion will continue to be more civil, more reasoned, and more substantive in the months leading up to next November.