Which brings us to the language we are using in our next debate. Here's the motion: “Better Elected Islamists Than Dictators.”

It plays directly off the course events have taken since the Arab Spring, particularly in Egypt, where the fall of a dictator has led to free and open elections. The big winners in those elections? Parties that lead under "Islamism.”

An interesting outcome – democracy giving power to an ism many believe to be undemocratic. Not to mention antithetical to US interests.

But which is worse: that outcome, or the dictatorship that preceded it? You can see it already: this is one of those debates where solid arguments can go both ways. Our debaters have been living and arguing this topic for years – but with all of them in a room together, we're thinking they'll get this debate to where it rarely gets – to where you'll have to “think twice” about it – as we like to say.

Also: my piece from Sunday's Washington Post on ways to make Wednesday's presidential debate into something real. Because, well, I'm into realism. Enjoy.

John