It could be called the “diss heard ’round the world.” Rudolph Giuliani’s dismissal of Ron Paul’s assertion that U.S. foreign policy makes us more likely to be attacked by terrorists may have won him the debate, but its long-term impact on his credibility has yet to be seen.

The war in Iraq remains the issue of greatest importance to voters. In Paul and Giuliani we have two candidates for a major party’s nomination whose views on the matter couldn’t be farther apart and whose disagreement has become perhaps the most talked-about event to date of the 2008 Presidential race.

It’s thus a natural time for a real debate, a structured intellectual dispute over an issue as opposed to a soundbite-generating Q and A session. The resolution: The United States should adopt a noninterventionist foreign policy. Paul takes affirmative, Giuliani takes negative.

Paul, one of the darkest of dark horses, has nothing to lose. Giuliani, currently the Republican front-runner, may be tempted to ignore the challenge, but that would be foolish in the face of a snowballing perception among independents and moderate Republicans that he is, as CNN commentator Roland Martin bluntly put it, an “idiot.” It would be even more foolish to ignore such a challenge given how Internet-savvy Paul’s small but zealous base has shown itself to be. The question “Why is Rudy afraid to debate Paul? If he can’t stand up to Paul, how could he possibly take on Clinton or Richardson?” would be everywhere. Furthermore, if Giuliani succeeds in demonstrating his head to be non-empty, he’ll have done the GOP a favor, in making the case for the Republicans’ foreign policy to the public, whereas other contenders either spout meaningless patriotic rhetoric or change the subject.

Ron Paul should challenge Giuliani to a debate, on YouTube — seemingly his medium of choice — on the blogosphere, and at every interview in the next week.