Essentially the play is a 75 minute debate between youthful idealism and seasoned pragmatism- as A has ideas as to how ISIS needs to be abolished, health care needs to be free for all, education should be a right, etc. – and N sees all the compromises that need to be made to SLOWLY move the needle in that direction.  The play is a lot of talk.  Sometimes I wondered if they really needed actors – if the play was more of a thesis than an outline for an event on stage.  Admittedly, I did see it for its fourth preview so lines were still new and I could see actors – particularly N struggle several times to find her next line.  The chemistry was not there all the time.  The biggest response the play got from the audience was any mention of the arch enemy Trump (who they never mentioned by name).  For some reason they moved downstage center for these references and always got the applause they were looking for.  It did seem a bit contrived.  It was an interesting debate, but ultimately there was no surprise or climax at the end.  You knew where it was going to end – and actually, knew much of how it was going to get there – so what was the point?