Mind was the last thing to come into existence

OK, my opponent's whole argument rests on this claim: that neural activity can continue during brain-death. 1) I've told you it does not, because the only way the mind continues is if the brain does continue. 2) I've told you that in 88% of cases mind definitely does not remain active (cf van Lommel). The final 12% can be put down to statistical error, bias and drugs. 3) I've told you this is an example of an appeal to uncertainty even if you're right. 4) My opponent has not given any response to any of the above. He must do so in order to win this argument. Second I'm going to deal with layers of consciousness (not being a neuroscience fact). My opponent said that we HAVE NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE in rounds one and two. Therefore my opponent agrees it is not a fact. In rounds two and three I gave analysis as to why the subjective experience he relied on was wrong. I never got any response to this, so I assume he dropped the argument. Now my opponent must provide evidence for layers of consciousness from neuroscience. He has not done so, because he cannot do so. I've also said in round 2 that the conclusion is wrong based on the logical premises, and it's an appeal to uncertainty. Third, my opponent claims I did not provide evidence to support my no-free-will claim. Yes, I did. I came up with loads of websites choc-a-block full of writing by top neuroscientists to refute that claim. I came up with a paragraph of sophisticated analysis that my opponent never responded to. What more must I do to provide evidence? Fourth, my opponent's claim that van Lommel's study "was done in a similar manner to your suggestion" is a downright lie. You can take my word for that because 1) I actually bothered to read all of van Lommel's report 2) I cited a website that lists a multiplicity of errors made by van Lommel 3) I cited two really obvious errors I found myself; and 4) I'm a statistics student at university Finally, on why my opponent made this topic. He wanted (according to him) to encourage discussion. That's because, presumably, 1) he likes dialogue, 2) he is interested in this topic, and maybe even 3) he wants others to know more about the topic. At the very least, my opponent must agree that (2) is the result of life-experiences, one does not wake up one morning and randomly out of the blue decide to become interested in neuroscience. (3) is clearly based on the instinct to care for others, while I argue (1) is based on things he was taught when he was very young. And his meditation example- when we meditate we remove choices, not instincts. When you have no choices you have nothing for your instincts to act on. But that is no control over the instincts which remain as strong as ever. But don't take my word for it. Take my evidence. I've told you, for example, that the inherent predictability of behavior shows why free will is wrong. I've given you two sources, and told you there are thousands more on the internet. Go do your own research. But given my opponent's unwillingness to engage with this topic, I think it's clear this point falls to my side of the house. I applaud my opponent's humility (another instinct, by the way). I'm sure that in my victory he will gain gratification that he "won" in a sense. Vote for the side with the better argument. Please vote for me.