It is more likely than not that an afterlife does not exist

Many thanks to my opponent. Hopefully this round wont be too bad, I have little time. Lets look first to the debate as a whole. Anyone reading can see that the majority of the clash centered around my case. This was exactly what I was hoping for because my opponent needed to provide positive arguments against the afterlife which he has failed to do. At best, his arguments call into question the philosophical nature of an afterlife, but what that actually is has never been firmly established. Spinko writes: "Con has failed to sufficiently show why agnosticism must be 50/50. I freely admitted in the previous round that if one if looking for ultimate justification, one won't find it concerning the existence of an afterlife."First, it's not that agnosticism per se that must be 50/50, but rather that in a debate it must be 50/50 since the burden of proof is shared. Moreover, my opponent acknowledged that HE is the one with the primary burden, so if we are to presume anything it is in my favor. Second, it would be unreasonable for me to expect him to prove the afterlife didnt exist but not to expect positive argument. One argument was solely a negative one about how we cannot know, and the other was a strawman of my position--I never explictiely advocated dualism and he never properly responded to my suggestion that concious could be physical in life and metahysical after. Expecting me to prove the mind one way or the other is clearly unreasonable, however insofar as I offered an explanation and he failed to refute it than I win.==Opponents case==1. SkepticismI saw no response to my turn on this argument. He says that we cannot know if the afterlife exists, and then procedes to argue against it. This is self refuting, because if he thinks discussion of the afterlife is out of the realm of our experience, than he cannot justifiably expect you to affirm that it does not exist. This is critical because it takes out all his arguments. If we cannot know we cannot affirm. 2. Dualism1. Spinko concedes he never directly gave any argument for monism. He tries to in round 4, but it's too late in the debate for him to advance new arguments like that. Still, I will respond.His only argument is that physical stimuli effect conciousness....so what? He never links this to monism; moreover since a "soul" on Earth would be designed TO INTERACT with the physical world of course it is effected by physical stimuli. His only argument for monism is a critique of dualism, and yet he totally drops my argument that I dont have to support dualism. Thus you have a clear path to negation, since his advocacy has never been explicitely proven. 2. Spinko throws the completely unreasonable burden on me to explain how something (possibly) metaphysical interacts with the physical world. He claims I "completely failed to offer any hypothesis or explanation as to the transfer of consciousness from physicality to non-physicality" but this is so incredibly unreasonable that I suspect even he knows it. Figuring this out, if even possible, would require a highly dangerous and illegal controlled experiment where subjects are subjected to near death experiences and brought back, and then hypothesizing on the results. That he pretends to expect an 18 year old highschool student to prove how a soul works if it exists shows more than anything else that I am winning this debate. This whole argument is presuming the existence of a soul anyway which entails the existence of a super natural being that has the ability to do things beyond our comprehension. So really, spinkos attack just does not hold water. I am expected to prove something metaphysical, but he is not expected to prove something that he argues is physical (conciousness). 3. Note further that if I refute this argument I win since his other argument contains no positive ground for him at all (in fact, its been turned to my side). Spinko says that the only reason we should continue to buy this point is because "the clear bond between consciousness and its physical roots and... the lack of explanatory analysis by Con..." but upon examining the first point, we see immediately that I explained why physical stimuli effect conciousness, and on the second one this is not a positive argument. Just because I didnt defend my position (I dont agree) doesnt mean he's right. Since he's failed to justify his, it means neither of us are right and negative wins on default. Thus, you have a clear path to negation, argued and extended throughout the entire debate, before even glancing at my case.==My case==1. NDE'sPhilosophicalSpinko still gives no scientific reason for these experiences other than "that reason is causal". First take this as an implicit concession. The fact that he cant give any reasons, just explanations, shows that my argument is true. Secondly, he misinterpets the nature of my argument. There is no naturalistic reason for man to have evolved to the point where NDE's occur in non-recoverable situations. My opponent deserves great credit here for directing the discussion here to the scientific rational, but we need to look at the philosophical implications of these experiences. He has given no reason that these would exist in a state on nature, that there is a scientific explanation for them shows only the guiding hand of the creator in the absence of any alternative explanation from him. I win on this issue.ScientificHe brings up again the lack of oxygen thesis, but once again fails to explain what it actually is or how it relates to NDE's other than just apparently "explains" it. His argument that the brain can function without oxygen goes against basically everything we know about the human body, and he doesnt explain why it would cause anything except onrushing blackness--let alone the appearences of other worldly beings and family members. He doesnt link this very well at all with his argument, nor the resolution, nor does this address the philosophical implications what so ever. He also implicitely concedes to the Alexander evidence. He makes no attempt at a scientific response, probably because there is none. He only accuses me of appealing to authority but he hasnt explained how this is actually fallacious because in many cases it is not. A Harvard Neurosurgeon is a RELEVANT authority when it comes to the subject of the brain, so his attack fails. Extend this, then, all the way across. I have never been shown a philosophical or scientific reason for NDE's, so you negate because they are positive experiences of what can only be,in the absence of any other explanation, an afterlife.ConciousnessSpinko still gives no explanation on what the experience of conciousness actually is. For someone who insists so strongly that the mind is just physical, he's had a very hard time proving so because there simply is no scientific consensus. It baffles even the most brilliant of minds. This further affirms my thesis that it does not exist physically. All he says is that it is effected by physical stimuli, but this is no argument. All this proves is that conciousness is effected by physical stimuli. No impact at all. Given that he has failed to explain what conciousness is, why assume it can simply end on death?I have given good reasons to believe an afterlife exists, and my opponent has not given comporabley good reasons that an afterlife does not exist. For these reasons, I implore you to vote Con. Thank you spinko for giving me the chance to debate this