Leaving aside the click-bait element in the title of this YouTube posting, the choice of words is so disrespectful and misogynistic it beggars belief. Not surprisingly the bait captures plenty of trolls in the comment thread. Awful!
Context – We don’t see the actual talk by Peterson, and it’s certainly not a debate (not necessarily a bad thing) and I can’t see where it becomes remotely heated? Certainly starts with an awkward atmosphere, and doesn’t seem too well facilitated. Clearly also a religious Christian audience? The dialogue involves too-long one-sided spiels, so none too constructive. Goldstein clearly only mentions Auschwitz because Peterson already has?
I happen to like both Rebecca Goldstein and Jordan Peterson, whereas William Lane Craig seems entirely unintelligible to me, conflating god as both simply a Platonic good and a supernatural (omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent) causal agent. If God is everything and God explains everything then it really explains nothing. Peterson’s take on imperfect human reality in contrast to a conceptual perfection of God make perfect sense.
Adding “God” to the subjective > evolved > objective spectrum of morality doesn’t add anything to its grounding. She’s right. The Socratic Euthyphro argument she uses doesn’t “prove” anything, that’s for sure, it casts doubt between two logical extremes – typical Socrates of course – all it can prove is that it (god) doesn’t solve the problem. (And not the first discourse to stumble over transcendence and Kantian transendentalism. Ho hum.)
Anyway, not sure what thesis is being debated so can’t say much more about the success or otherwise of the discussion. Goldstein and Peterson continue to talk sense to me. Lane Craig ends on a nasty trick – asking to Goldstein to comment on a Pinker quote. (In my book Pinker is too scientistic, whereas in Goldstein’s book he’s her husband but she’s not this brother’s keeper when it comes to naturalistic explanation of ethics, meaning and purpose.)