Great debate - I think nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj70v5n7z could have done little  better :-) 

The idea of scarcity is important in digital realm - where technically one could make millions of copy of a book or a picture .. Scarcity doesn't carry special significance in real world because all resources are anyway  based on energy which is scarce .. Bitcoin brings that energy linkage to a digital item .. that is a unique thing .. no other digital item has this feature. 

Another argument on use value of gold - the biggest use is store of value - even for gold. Any other usecase is of lower value .. eg using gold  in computer chips. #bitcoin is accidental realisation of this idea ..  it is first time that a store of value got  Engineerd in digital space though the intent was to figure out a P2P cash system .. a mistake that most other shitcoins made by moving to proof of stake ..

Purely from debate standpoint -  question that he should have asked Peter is how much he understands digital signatures, or the proof of work .. cuz unless you challange a cynic on tech - there is no way to showcase the unique properties that Bitcoin achieves .. these properties are hard to accomplish even in physical systems - Bitcoin does it in digital form - at speed of light ..