The only time I’ve watch these are breakdowns of debating tactics. There was also the one with Peterson where he showed he only did Mott and Bailey fallacies

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle), also called the castle and courtyard, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the “motte”) and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the “bailey”).[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]

When he was pushed to defend his statements, he’d deflect by arguing semantics and definitions of what words mean while he himself refused to really define anything. He just kept disagreeing with the opponents definitions.Then he tried make the debate about that.