Yes, the Democratic presidential debates were flawed, annoyingly so. Too many candidates, too little time. Questions sometimes longer than the answers allowed, and heavy-handed attempts by moderators to drive conflict for the sake of "moments."

And yet, for all their shortcomings, the debates provided a surprisingly substantive look at a crowded field that revealed some raw political talent, some deep thinkers, and a lot for American voters to chew on in coming months. There was no juvenile name-calling, and, to the candidates' credit, a push to delve into the details of ideas. Both nights saw a thoughtful mix of ideas on where to take health care, criminal justice, the need for reforms in policing, nuanced positions on climate change and how best to tackle immigration reform and border security.

It's too easy to listen to cynical, instant pundits who talk about how nothing matters this early. They dwell too long on who had a moment of unsteadiness, who didn't wear a tie or who stumbled on a word. But those willing to look deeper saw candidates wrestling with serious policy issues on live television, defending their ideas, challenging those of their rivals. It was the kind of vigorous give-and-take that we've seen far too little of lately.

And we should cheer the fact that even if it's treated as a circus, ideas and plans are being discussed, and we get to watch and begin to take the measure of those who would lead us. Better still, candidates skipped the nasty personal digs that have characterized politics of late. The exchanges got intense, but candidates stuck to issues and records. That's fair game and part of the vetting process.

Beyond issues, an even bigger dynamic emerged in these debates. Voters are watching a party work through in real time the direction it will take. There is the reassuring appeal of returning to a pre-Trump political environment touted by former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden's belief that America has always been great and that President Donald Trump is an anomaly who must be excised is an article of faith that has made him the front-runner.

But there is another strain in the party that is surfacing. It started in 2016 with maverick Sen. Bernie Sanders, and has been amplified this year among those who believe the status quo hasn't been so great for many Americans, that cautious incrementalism cost the party the White House in 2016 and turned it over to a Republican disrupter who was unafraid to tear up the rule book.

In confronting former U.S. Rep. John Delaney on the first night of this week's debates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren summed up the view of those seeking sweeping change. "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for," she said.

There are big differences at work among these candidates, on policy and direction. That's good for our democracy. Half the candidates you saw this week will likely be gone by the September debates. Choices will start to narrow.

We're not going to get into who won or lost the debates — now or in September. What we want to see are more ideas, more challenges, more vigorous debate on where this great country should go and how to get there.

That is the antidote to pettiness in politics, to empty rhetoric and fear-based attacks that prey on emotion.