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

Thanks for the debate, John. I'll first return to my own case and explain why it stands, then return to my opponents. Evidence standard/skepticism My opponents arguments never met the standard I argued was necessary to determine what is more rational than not. At most, Pro gives links to scientists who claim to have this kind of evidence without actually presenting any himself; we still have no idea of the nature of these supposed memories, and my opponent never responded to the blatant bias and lax standards of his main researcher--this is not an ad hominem attack on Stevenson, his work can still be right despite his bias, but the problem is in this round we're never actually given any of his work. We have only evidence to not take his findings seriously.Moreover even if these cases are perfectly valid, they're only proof of reincarnation if that is what we were looking for the begin with. In my last round, I gave a variety of examples of ideas that these memory imprints could also prove, such as an intervensionist supernatural being, or conciousness as a life force. John responded to this argument exactly as I hoped he would, arguing:"None of the alternative explanations offered by my opponent have been as backed up by valid scientific or philosophical fields..." This was exactly what I was trying to illustrate! Reincarnation as well has not been backed up by science and indeed it's impossible for it to! These cases are evidence for reincarnation only if we start initially looking for evidence of reincarnation, despite the fact that these phenomena (that haven't really been illustrated well in this round anyway) can support a myriad of hypotheses. My suggestions are just as valid as my opponents, and consquently this circles right back to my argument throughout the entire debate which is that we just cannot know.You can extend my argument about how proving that any afterlife is more likely than not is impossible, which negates the resolution right here. We can have our own opinions, but these will never be able to be conclusively proven or disproven, this debate pretty much proves that as all the evidence my opponent brought up can be used to support all kinds of hypotheses. Recall also that isolated phenomena do not prove something is true--if we're going to follow that standard, pretty much every religion is true as the siting of the Virgin Mary and supposed experiences of the Christian afterlife illustrate. My argument about how we can't prove that a soul exists and my opponents case is predicated upon the existence of a soul can also be extended. We know so little about the mind and about what a soul would actually be like that we can't affirm the resolution. My opponent misunderstands this argument and extensively argues against my passing statement that people are only the sum of their memories and their experiences. He makes a good argument for why memory is not our essence, but my actual argument was that the person we are is the sum of all our experiences. Even if we cannot remember something, it still shaped a part of us and helped to create our personality. But most importantly, this wasn't the major argument, rather it was that we don't know enough about the mind, the soul, or reincarnation to make any really powerful claims.Indeed these supposed memories are likely not so. I gave an example from my own life (incidentally the only example given in round--my opponent gave a source listing a researcher conducting a television show about "Extraordinary people") of a child (me) claiming to be something it could not possibly be, but this does not prove reincarnation but rather that children will claim random things at time. Children will answer questions falsely and will believe just about anything because their minds are not yet complete. Convincing them that they've led a past life and then asking them questions about it does not prove reincarnation, and is it any surprise to anyone that these cases are all children? I made this argument in my previous round, children are impressionable and will often make wild claims for reasons adults can't really understand. Are there any adults claiming to have been reincarnated, or any of these children who maintain their claims into their adult lives? Somehow I find that very doubtful. There is simply no substance in this argument. In response to the need for skepticism my opponent gives the example of atheists and theists who can come to rational decisions about their beliefs. First of all, this is extra-topical and fails to address the argument as well as not being an example of a similar case. The case of the existence of God is different as there are philosophical (along with scientific) arguments for/against the existence of God, which do not exist in the debate over life after death (if they do my opponent has failed to show them). The summed up version is that my opponent claims there have been over 3000 cases proving reincarnation, I argue that not oly has he not introduced a few of these for evaluation (how can I refute what isn't presented?) but also that the scientists conducting these studies were biased and didn't meet scientific standards. I also explained why my arguments still stand in round, meaning that we have to presume skepticism and consequently negate the resolution. There is no way to conclusively prove an afterlife.My arguments have stood my opponents scrutiny, and consequently the resolution is negated.Johns case There isn't much to say here as most of the debate especially in the last round ended up falling onto my contentions, even if much of it was actually his advocacy, it mostly tied in with my arguments in one way or another. Still, there are a few things that need to be cleared up, namely:My opponent never gave any standard to decide what is more rational than not. I did, (the scientific method) and his case fails to meet this standard. As such voters need to judge this round based off of science, who provided better scientific evidence of their position. In that case, your ballot should be clear as no where in this round has my opponent even given an example of someone who lived before. Pro presents Carl Sagan as being somewhat impressed by the findings of some of these researchers, but in round the evidence John gave has been less than impressive; the fact of the matter is that Johns arguments failed to meet any legitimate hurdle. I sincerely appreciate my opponents effort, but I genuinely believe and have provided evidence for the idea that we do need to presume skepticism and his case has failed to really move the debate in his direction. The problem with Johns case is that it probably would be convincing to someone who grew up believing in reincarnation, but the someone who hasn't the slightest idea what reincarnation would actually be like, such as myself, the idea that a soul exists and can be transferred into another being is not one that we can just presume but rather something that much be argued for. In the end, what we have is very little in the way of evidence meeting any form of scientific standard, and we will have to negate.Thanks to my opponent. I urge a con vote.