Peterson in this argument represents all that I hate about preachers or humanitarians (or classical writers) talking about their higher version of truth, which is a blend of epistemology, axiology, ethics, and esthetics. Harris takes a natural for me position of treating truth statements in isolation, as statements about objective reality (or about logical constructs). It’s interesting to follow their struggle with each other’s position, although Peterson’s is incomprehensible for me, as it is for Harris. But I do recognize in his position familiar notes that irritated me when I encountered them in literature.
Also, I realized that I would’ve never put the definite article in Peterson’s favorite phrase "by any stretch of the imagination", which, according to dictionaries, should actually be there. Can’t imagine why it’s there; don’t feel the need for it there at all :-(