Why argue against calling this a debate (which, contrarily, your headline concedes) just because they agreed on over-arching issues and it wasn't hostile or nasty? There was significant nuance between their positions to provide food for thought, even though I believe there is need for much more clarity on HOW to implement their stated goals, something only Guy Caron mentioned. I've also just read prior comments here and am again surprised by the venom directed at the Leap Manifesto and its principal authors Avi Lewis and Naomi Kline. Last April in Edmonton, the NDP agreed only to DISCUSS this.... why is that denounced as a diktat or closet coup? What's so threatening about discussing alternative ideas?