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

My opponent still offers no positive arguments in support of the resolution, even admitting so, and at this point in the debate it is too late for him to do so. For this reason, he loses the debate automatically as he didnt meet his burden.His only response to this is this: "imagine I came up to you and claimed to be the President of the United States...I make a variety of claims, each of which eventually turns out to be shown false." The problem with this line of reasoing is that the reason we would not believe his claim is because we have and know good reasons to believe that, to name a few examples, Barack Obama is the current president, spinko is underage, no anarchist president would be elected, ect. A more comparable claim would be, for example, me claiming that I'm the president of the Dallas Youth Stamp Collecting Society. Since you have no knowledge of that organization saying "oh well, you cant verify it" isn't an argument against my claim. So you can implement an entire case turn here, his advocacy is this: most likely, no afterlife exists. His argument however esentially boils down to "we cannot know". Nevermind my positive arguments in favor of an afterlife, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as any crimonolgist will tell you. He has failed to uphold his burden of proof, even if he soundly beats me on literally everything you still negate because the best case scenario for him is that we are agnostic about the existence of an afterlife, just as we would be about my presidency of the Stamp Collecting Society. =My case= 1. NDE's Spinkos only response to this is that there are other explanations. Recall that I have already pre emptively responded to this in my first round, I said that even if there are scientific explanations for the experience of these NDE's, there are no scientific/evolutionary/philosophical reasons for these occurrences with the lack of an afterlife. Since he made no response to this, I'll extend it cleanly across and urge a ballot in affirmation.Lets look at his scientific explanation. He asserts that the "lack of oyxgen thesis" can explain NDE's, and yet he doesnt explain what this actually is. You can't buy this argument because its an unfair burden to throw on me (I would have to independently research this theory and then refute it) and he hasnt explained HOW this accounts for NDE's. This would be the equivalent of me responding to his skepticism point "see scientific method" or something. It bears no weight in the round because he has not explained its relevance and, this late in the debate, he cannot. Ignore his card because it is non responsive-- it offers no scientific reasoning for these experiences, and, unless I'm missing something, no scientific explanation at all for cases where the subject is clinically dead. He just simply has not given enough evidence to refute this point. I understand what he's trying to say, that the similarities in near death experiences could be explained by biological and psychological similarities, but this line of reasoning provides no positive argument as to why these dont prove the existence of an afterlife. That there is a scientific explanation just confirms my hypothesis in my view, given that my opponent hasnt explained why these experiences would arrise from mans natural evolution. Since hes made no response to my argument that they would not arrise naturally/serve no rational biological purpose, this seems only to confirm the thesis that the existence NDE's can only be explained by supernatural means--IE, God and an afterlife. Moreover, he completely dropped the Alexander evidence. A Harvard Neurosurgeon,a brain expert, flat out SAID there is not even scientific EXPLANATIONS for many of these experiences including his. Spinkos argument just simply cannot over power this, and since drops are concessions I win the round by default. 2. DMTMy opponent is correct here that the perception of an afterlife is not the same as an actual one. I expected this response, however the more I thought about it the more I came to the realization that it's a fair objection. Honestly, I only ran this point to see what his response would be but I'll drop it here. 3. ConciousnessSpinko misunderstands my point. Nowhere am I saying that spinko has to irrefutably prove a physical explanation for conciousness, but rather that he must offer one. It's an unfair burden to throw on me to say "conciousness can be explained physically" and then expect me to refute every physical explanation. How could I be expected to refute his explanation when he hasnt offered a full one, and how can anyone judging this be expected to believe that conciousness is derived physically when there is no scientific consensus and spinko has no explicit advocacy? At this point its too late for him to do so, and we cannot assume that conciousness can end. His only response is nonresponsive to the actual point of contention. So what if physical stimuli can effect conciousness? No one, least of all me, is advocating that conciousness exists solely on a supernatural plane, in fact I even said that it's probable it exists on both. =Pro case=SkepticismSpinko concedes here that this is a negative argument. Much of my response to this can be explained above, but in this debate he didnt offer any real reasoning against the afterlife. He says we need to weigh the evidence, but I HAVE given good reasons to believe that there is an afterlife, and spinko has not given you reasons to be against it. He tries to argue that since we cannot draw a conclusion based off experience you should vote pro. Not only hashe DROPPED the example of relevant experience I offered, he also doesnt explain how this "point[s] in the opposite direction. " As it stands, even if you buy all his arguments he doesn't give you good reasons why an afterlife doesnt exist--he gives you reasons as to why we cannot know for sure. Dualism/interactionSpinko completely dropped my arguments that: 1. It's perfectly reasonable given the evidence for an afterlife that conciousness resides physically during life and no physically in the after life, and2. That he has to give some positive arguments for monism. He gave some small justifications in some of his rebuttals (like how physical stimuli effect conciousness), not only have I refuted these, but this doesn't justify it as a whole, nor does it explain why monism would have to extend to after one dies. Spinko throws the burden on me to explain how a "soul" can interact physically with a body, and I did, stating that the soul can be physical in life then non physical in the afterlife. He dropped it. He then claims I need to prove how the memories of a person can be imprinted into some supernatural afterlife realm but this is irrational. How could I reasonably be expected to do so? Its unjustifiable to expect me to give naturalistic explanations for something supernatural. I'm not arguing what an afterlife looks like or feels like, but rather weighing the evidence and advancing the conclusion that it does indeed exist. Turn his skepticism against him here, theres no way for me to experience this and carry back these explanations without dying and returning from the dead, which happens on rarely with certain needed conditions. However I believe that the people whodirectly experienced the afterlife claiming that they retained some personal identity and met loved ones, and the fact that spinko doesnt explain what conciousness is and for all we know it COULD ONLY exist on a supernatural realm strongly disconfirms his objection. For these reasons, I urge a pro ballot. Thank you.