Reincarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis

.. .. 'However' and there is always a however. .. .. I do believe I hold the upper hand in this debate as I will attempt to show, My opponent has accused me first and foremost of not touching on his objections, when I clearly gave objections to his arguments in my above round, 'Evidence' My opponent claims I have failed to provide, although even he himself is familiar with the phenomena I have presented, my opponent claims I haven't presented a single case, to which I object and challenge that I have indicated him in the right direction which points to valid scientific circles who claim to have an enormous account of data regarding this phenomena of children who can remember there past lives and which upon checking turn out to be accurate, which according to some academics, is conducted with rigorous scientific study, The doctor Skepticism I agreed it's crucial to be sceptical to begin with and almost certainly otherwise, I think even if we accept reincarnation on a rational basis we can still be sceptical about it's likeliness, but in light of the data we should accept it as the best explanation, none of the alternatives my opponent suggests, Con States "Perhaps consciousness itself is a universal force like gravity and these memories are from rare instances where parts of the force that used to be part of another particular person (not their soul) are used in another person in concentrations unusually high--this would explain the rarity of these occurrences. Or perhaps they are the work of some supernatural being for whatever reason, or some other unexplainable phenomena". . .. .Con None of the alternative explanations offered by my opponent have been as backed up by valid scientific or philosophical fields such as I presented, In other words my suggestion carries more weight than my opponents. Therefore I have offered valid reasons why my proposition is more likely. .. Memory Thirdly, the argument from memory, as I stated before, is no argument at all. And I adequately rebuttal this in my previous round, but yet we still see Con re-present his case without challenging my original objection. Simply put, because I can not remember, is not a very good argument, some people do not remember things they did in THIS life time, but that doesn't mean the incidences didn't occur, similarly, an old person who has aged may suffer from loss of memory or amnesia and lose all recollection of the days of their youth, does it mean she didn't exist , simply because she can not remember. No, therefore simply because I can not remember is not a good argument. And again I remind the audience that there are arguably 3000 cases well documented cases presented by Dr Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker MD, who carried over Dr Ian Stevenson's work and has many more cases of his own and is the medical director of the Child and Family Psychiatry Clinic, and Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. .. . One such case reads In 2006, Tucker investigated the case of Cameron Macaulay as part of the Channel 5 Documentary Extraordinary People: The Boy Who Lived Before. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, My strongest argument that comes from my opponent is, That we just don't know what lies beyond death and if the soul survives the body, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions, so we should remain sceptical, I have no problem with this line of thinking, but it does not mean we can not make rational decisions, For example; Both theist and atheist alike, have no proof if God exists or does not exist, yet we both draw a rational conclusion as to weather he exists or not, although the theist believes he does and believes he reached that conclusion through being rational, still I agree, he still doesn't know, same as the atheist, he still doesn't know if God exists or not, Yet he holds no belief in God, yet even the atheist is sceptical and admits, although I don't believe God exists or lack a belief that he does, I can not know, and the theist holds a belief that God does exist, yet he still does not know. This example shows that we can make rational decisions being both atheist and theist, and yet still not know. But we make those decisions on the available data, and the data I have presented surly shows it is rational to accept re-incarnation as the best possible explanation for the Phenomena of children who can remember their past lives. There is even an atheist argument for re-incarnation, don't ask me how, but there is, apparently. I won't present it as it is my last round, and to be honest I just looked it up and to my surprise, it's still possible for an atheist to believe in re-incarnation, as all atheism entails is lack of belief in God. Conclusion, I have offered ample amounts of philosophical and analytical plus scientific based arguments for my case, although as Thett3 points out we should remain sceptical as we just don't know, is a good line of thought, I think we can conclude from the available data that re-incarnation in light of any alternatives my opponent has presented, should be considered more likely than not, on a rational basis. and is the best explanation of the phenomena. With that said I will provide links which I previously presented to which I found broken, . http://noetic.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... And finally I would genuinely like to thank my opponent Thett3 for giving me a fantastic debate and for being a fantastic debater and giving me the opportunity to have this debate. .. .. .. .. But I urge the audience to Vote Pro, and live forever. For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized TEXT 20 Many Thanks.