Both of these puzzles fall apart if you understand the concepts in Argument Screens Off Authority, A Priori, and Bayes Theorem. Essentially, the notion of "defeat" is extremely silly. In Puzzle 1, for example, what you should really be doing is updating your level of belief in T based on the mathematician's argument. The order in which you heard the arguments doesn't matter--the two Bayesian updates will still give you the same posterior regardless of which one you update on first.

Puzzle 2 is similarly confused about "defeat"; the notion of "misleading evidence" in Puzzle 2 is also wrong. If you look at things in terms of probabilities instead of the "known/not known" dichotomy presented in the puzzle, there is no confusion. Just update on the mathematician's argument and be done with it.