Post 4
There are tools debaters use to throw their opponents off guard in order to win arguments without being right. When Tzortzis uses the name of his opponent in meaningless mental experiments, this is what he is doing. He does so, too, when he gives false praise to his opponents, hoping to gain sympathy. He does it again by firing a long sequence of weak arguments. Since defeating each one takes more time than uttering it, professor Krauss can't possibly respond to all. For every one that goes unanswered, more spectators might be deceived.
Tzortzis even accuses Krauss of being a sophist. Sophism is basically a well articulated lie, one that is made to sound reasonable and true, but is a lie. A simple example of sophism would be:
“Logic demands that since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, than Socrates is mortal. But he is not mortal, since his work and influence will continue on forever. Thus logic is false.”
By conflating the meaning of Socrates as a man and Socrates as a set of ideas, one can reach false conclusions and lead others to false conclusions. If you want more examples of sophistry, just watch the debate.
A very strong example of Tzortzis' deception happens at 1:38:03 into the video, when he cites a passage form Krauss' book:
“...the energy of empty space (or anything else, for that matter) cannot be physically infinite...”
So, what message was professor Krauss trying to convey? It is clear: “the energy of things, including that of empty space, can't be infinite”.
And what message was Tzortzis trying to convey? Apparently: “no thing in the universe, including the energy of empty space, can be infinite”. But in reality, he wants spectators to think: “professor Krauss is lying even in face of this contradiction, meaning atheists are sophists trying to deceive me”. And he got applauded for it, which tells us something about the audience.
We're often presented with the difficult dichotomy of whether those speaking lies are uninformed or being deceitful. Tzortzis leaves no room for doubt.
Debates like this are a serious challenge for someone interested in the truth. If a debater is dedicated to reason and the other is dedicated to convincing the audience, the last will certainly win the debate.
The art of lying is not very well developed among those who seek truth. It is even worse: as the truth tellers can always count on the truth itself to help them convince others, they are usually not very well trained on convincing.
Even though I enjoy good rhetoric and watching debates, one must be aware it is more of a game or sport than actually about uncovering truth.