That there is reason to believe that experience after death is possible.

I’d like to begin with Con’s first and only point that bears even a semblance of a legitimate contention. With this contention, I will demonstrate that not only has Con failed to make a legitimate argument against my case, but that he his claim tacitly demonstrates that he is currently in no position to make any arguments whatsoever regarding the resolution. “Then he goes on to refute himself by saying "should conciousness and experience proceed from death, it will proceed from the same terms." Should conciousness proceed from death? My opponent is demonstrating an argument from the assumption that conciousness does in fact proceed from death, a fact he has yet to demonstrate adequately. In a nut shell he is saying "So if this is true, I am right."” Quickly, I’d like to make this contention slightly more comprehensible and point out that Con is claiming I have given into the fallacy of circular reasoning in that my premise presupposes the conclusion. In the first, I submit my claim cannot be representative of this fallacy as my conclusion isn’t even present (my conclusion is the resolution). Moreover, my condensed argument presented in round 3 shouldn’t be taken as being a 'one-to-one' substitute for my original argument, as my claims are buttressed and each point is treated with much more necessary explanation in my original argument.Facts and Circular Reasoning Here, I’ll make the more the perceptive point that Con’s contention is founded on a fatal misunderstanding of the resolution (as opposed to my argument). Con asserts that you cannot use ‘the fact’ that consciousness proceeds after death as an argument demonstrating that fact. In many ways, I don’t even know how to answer this as it doesn’t even really begin to address any of my points at all. I am of the belief that the resolution was given in a perfectly clear language: “that there is reason to believe experience after death is possible.” Further, any vague language was later cleared up by the definitions given in round one. The resolution never said experience after death was a fact; that it is the case that after biological death, that each and everyone one of us experiencing beings will, with an apodictic certainty, go on experiencing. In fact, all the resolution said was that experience after death is possible. Assuming that consciousness does proceed from death was never meant to validate any facts, as Con explains, because validating facts was never the aim of the resolution. Assuming consciousness proceeded from death was only meant to test whether or not, by assuming it was factually occurring, we did not meet with any logical contradictions. In other words, it was only meant to demonstrate that it was not a logical inconsistent statement. This doesn't mean that it has to happen, only that it can happen. Therefore, Con’s claim of circular logic can be disregarded as fallacious (a la straw man) in that 'experience after death being regarded as a fact' was in neither my premise, nor my conclusion. The Negation of the Negation of Possible I can only infer from Con’s malapropos contentions that he has completely failed to understand the resolution, that is to say, he doesn’t even know what we are supposed to be debating. Allow me to explain the onus I had incurred for this argument. That the resolution asserts that experience after death is possible supposes an argument that is able to demonstrate one thing and one thing only: that the statement “It is the case that experience after death is impossible” is false, or more formally, “that it is not the case that experience after death is impossible.” In some cases, simply denying the one case doesn’t automatically imply its opposite, however, the nature of possible and impossible will allow this to be the case; impossibility is the negation of possibility, therefore to negate the former is simply to negate the negation of the later which is the same as affirming it (¬(¬A) ⇔ A). Therefore, if the resolution already presupposes this, it would follow that it is my duty to put forth an argument that would aver and legitimize this claim. Should my argument fail, it wouldn’t be able to withstand logical scrutiny. In consequence, it isn't only that Con cannot offer any counter arguments, but that he cannot offer any original arguments at all as he has tacitly suggested that he completely misunderstood the resolution and can’t appropriately address the topic at hand. Thus, all arguments extended from Con, up to this point, should be rejected as fallacious (a la straw man) given that he has shown an inadequate understanding of the resolution. Though Con may be unable to make the distinction between what is considered a scientifically verified fact and what is considered logically possible, I am confident that our readers are, indeed, capable of making that distinction and thus should rely on their own perspicacity should they wish to examine my case any further and satisfy any personal curiosities. The Rest is either misconduct that, heavy-handedly, asserts my argument is wrong because ‘it’s stupid’,“I am confident the readers will see through his rather long and unlettered argument for what it is, fatuous.”“To say that there is indeed reason to believe experience after death is possible because one did not exsist in the first place and now does is hardly an argument.”“Lastly, and almost comically he states...” more evidence of a totalizing straw man,“It cannot be proven that exsistence follows death in any meaningful sense.”“He is coming to the assumption, he called it a logical and valid resolution, that an interval of existence follows an interval of non existence everytime, or should at least, therefore...REASON.” or a patently incomplete thought.“ Then he goes on to say I refute myself because the video I recommended mentioned religious people, or to say I implied philosophy was equatable to wishful thinking? This surely couldn't have escaped any of you could it?” So for my peroration, I entreat that our readers vote Pro not for the reason that Con’s arguments weren’t enough to refute my case, but because no pertinent refutations were offered, whatsoever. As the point of the debate is to allow one party, representing one claim, challenge the opposing party respresenting the opposing claim and, strictly speaking, since no such interaction came to pass, due points should be awarded to Pro. Pro's argument stands unchallenged while Con is off debating some different resolution entirely.