Boston mayoral candidates Marty Walsh and John Connolly duked it out one last time Tuesday night in a bout to help the Boston public determine who should succeed Mayor Tom Menino. As has been the case throughout the race, it’s difficult, perhaps even more so with election day looming, to determine who won.

For Marty Walsh, his ability to counter Connolly’s accusations of negative campaigning by putting the City Councilor on the spot, as well as refusing to be baited on his union ties, only worked in his favor.

Expectedly, both men condemned the act of negative campaigning, whether through a third party or not, and denied doing such despite one pointing out the other’s direct tie to the ads and vice versa.

Once they got that out of the way, it was off to the races as they touched on their own policies and opinions concerning the next Boston Public School Superintendent, the next Boston Police Commissioner, diversifying unions, English language learners in the classroom and workplace, and the relationship between charter schools and the BPS system.

Both want to augment diversity in the school system, in the police force, and in trade and labor unions from the top ranks through the bottom while making available the resources needed to help people master the English. Fostering a collaborative union between charter schools and public schools to the benefit of both systems and their students was another talking point.

Where they differed most contentiously, though, was on the issue of Walsh’s legislation that called for binding arbitration with police and firefighter pensions, the proposed casino in East Boston, negative campaigning, union ties, and how they should be measured in their first 100 days in office.

When it comes to the issue of binding arbitration, Connolly has been quick to note that the “bill was written by the Firefighters union. The bill was filed six times and took away final review of city council.” But what he stressed the most was the  $200 million price tag it would slap on Boston’s taxpayers.

But Walsh stuck to his guns, saying the bill was filed with Boston’s best intentions at heart. He then took the opportunity to make note of his record on Beacon Hill. Should negotiations with other unions or organizations be necessary, he said, “I will be able to get to a negotiation because I have trust on the other side of the table.”

Connolly and Walsh both tried to avoid taking a stance on the East Boston casino despite pressure from moderator R.D. Sahl, saying it should be up to the residents of East Boston to ultimately decide. Connolly, however, alluded to his distaste for the project, saying, “East Boston’s future is in the waterfront, not with casinos.”

Walsh responded by playing to his man-of-the-people persona, saying if he lived in proximity, he would comply with the voice of the majority even if it would mean putting a casino down the street.

The end of the debate allowed for each candidate to ask the other two questions. Walsh, in the spirit of Connolly’s perpetual denying of negative ads and refusal to take responsibility for such, asked the West Roxbury native to pledge no negative campaigns for the remainder of the debate. His response was cryptic, almost threatening, telling Walsh, “Your campaign opened the door for this.”

As for unions, Walsh boldly and proudly noted, “I’m proud of who I support and the work that I’ve done with working families. I know I can stand up to unions, I have before. I will get the best deal on the table for the citizens of Boston.”

That’s not to say he didn’t go without folly. The very last question, asking candidates how they should be measured in their first 100 days in office, went in Connolly’s favor. He outlined specific points, including a top-to-bottom audit of the Boston Public Schools that would make it more efficient and progressive. On the other hand, Walsh withdrew to generalities, saying the “reflection of his cabinet” as well as a “master plan for transportation, education, and public safety” would be measurable.

In the end, Walsh and Connolly remain fairly aligned on the major issues, but used this arena to offer more personal jabs than we’ve seen in debates previous. This was the last debate before the primary election, and both candidates seemed intent on gaining an edge.

The voice of the people will decide soon enough, though, as election day on November 5 is less than a week away.

Who do you think has the edge, and why?