I'd not say that I "write off" the left, but I don't really have the inclination anymore to give them the benefit of the doubt. I generally ignore them unless I can't avoid it, because there is no logic or reason to them despite their protests to the contrary.
One thing I noticed about that 'debate' was that they apparently couldn't locate two actual conservatives to participate in it. At best Peterson is a classical liberal, and I suspect Fry isn't even that, though they both deplore the excesses of modern illiberal 'liberalism'.
Another is that Peterson missed a major opportunity when Dyson called him an "angry white man". IMO, his best response to that would have been to point out how inevitable it is that when arguing with a modern liberal, that they always stoop to name calling, because they don't really have anything else to say.
I've listened to quite a lot of Jordan Peterson, and I haven't heard him say anything I disagree with, not even slightly. I'm not aware of any deviation between his views and mine. I admit that I'm not sure of his views on the RKBA, but he is a Canadian, not an American, so there's no particular reason for him to volunteer his views on that subject.
He doesn't identify himself as a "Conservative" for reasons that he keeps to himself, as far as I know. He seems to be a person who simply follows facts and history to their logical ends, and takes his own conclusions seriously. He is so well educated, and his logical faculties are so powerful, that his conclusions strike one as worthy of full belief.
If you've listened to his lectures you know that he can be very funny at times, seemingly without meaning to, and that he is willing to admit surprisingly intimate details of his own thinking, such as by talking about problems that he has not been able to figure out. He's also willing to poke fun at himself.
He has put himself on record as stating he would defy Canada's laws against hurtful speech, would refuse to pay any fine levied against him for breaking those laws, and would go to prison before apologizing for doing so.
If he's a classical liberal, than I'm a classical liberal too.
Another is that Peterson missed a major opportunity when Dyson called him an "angry white man". IMO, his best response to that would have been to point out how inevitable it is that when arguing with a modern liberal, that they always stoop to name calling, because they don't really have anything else to say.
OK, if that's your style. I've found that it's more effective to let others reach their own conclusions about what motivates liberals, rather than explicitly pointing out those motives. It's more a style of debate than a missed opportunity, in my view. There is such a wealth of Conservative views available today from many sources, that anyone who begins to go down the path that leads from the liberal swamp to the truth of Conservatism will readily find encouragement and reinforcement on their own, which is the best way to find it.