Buddhism is an obviously incorrect religion

Since this is the last round, I feel I must point out that you have failed to present any argument that supports your case. Your resolution claims that Buddhism is "obviously wrong". You proposed such a resolution and the burden of proof lies on you. In order to prove your resolution, you had to show that Buddhism is unquestionably wrong, while I only had to show that there is a logical possibility that Buddhism might not be wrong. Throughout the debate all you did was questioning the evidences and explanations I brought. You never constructed an argument consistent with the resolution, while I not only brought arguments that denies the idea that Buddhism is obviously wrong, but also showed there is a possibility that Buddhism might actually be right. Anyway, to answer your questions, as I said on the last round, Buddhism as a religion have much of it's doctrine based on belief. The supernatural realms for example, can't be objectively proved, they are the way that Buddhists found to explain what can't be explained by empirical analysis alone, and most of their structures are strongly based on similar concepts of Hinduism, from which the Buddhist religion derived, the same way the Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell are derived from similar concepts found in Judaism and Zoroastrianism, the preceding religions of Christianity.As for your question about souls multiplications, first I must poit out that Buddhism doesn't say anything about a "Plant Realm", therefore I don't think the main branches of Buddhism consider plants as part of the reincarnation cycle. Anyway, although there are data that proves a great increase in the human population during it's existence on Earth, there is no proof that there are more animals now than 3000 years ago, as you claim. In fact many species have been extincted since then, so it's possible that there was actually a decrease in animal population. And even if there wasn't, we don't know anything about the population of the other 4 realms, so it's impossible to prove Buddhism wrong simply by pointing out changes in human and animal populations. Also I must remember you that in Buddhism it's not exactly a single soul that gets reincarnated over and over, but rather a new consciusness that arises as a product of the previous consciousness at each process of rebirth, it's not impossible that new consciouness can appear without needing a previous one.You say that reincarnation is false because it can't be explained by first-hand experience. But most things can't be experienced by forst-hand. For example, you can't experience the sinking of the Titanic, because you are not there and it's a claim that is besed entired on third persons accounts, yet, that doesn't mean the Titanic didn't sink. You also claim that the evidence for reincarnation I presented could be just coincidences, however it's extremely unlikely that all detailed similarities between a 2 year-old account and an obscure event that happened decades ago that almost no one ever heard about were just a coincidence. You could also claim that the fact that an iceberg hit the Titanic was just a coincidence and not the cause of the sinking, but logic dictates that the simplest explanation is the one that should be considered. (1)(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...;