Near Death Experience's (NDE's) are evidence for Afterlife.

(Thank you for the warm comment and the debate. However, the current situation leaves this a one round debate. Ordinarily, I wouldn't post contentions or new arguements my opponent cannot defend, but that seems to be the forced case on both sides. ) Again, I will assert that my opponents case is a fallacy, which is to say it has a major lapse in logic. My opponents article states that: "Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. " This does not refer to an afterlife scenario, but a current life scenario. Thusly, it dos not support the resolution. My opponents analogy is completely opposite of this entire debate. During that time, religious practiced that believed in the afterlife denied science. Now, on my side anyways, science is denying religion. It's flip flopped and therefore not a good example to follow. (Also, it doesn't matter how 'very, very close' science is or is not to proving it. The fact remains that it is unproven in all lights and aspects. ) My opponents article states: "A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. " I would like to point out that there is no discovery, because this process cannot be 'controlled' so to speak. I will now negate my opponents numbered points (keep in mind that I still hold my opponents case is a fallacy): 1. Dr. Moody's reasearch can only be confirmed by those who supposively died. Thus, he can only go by their word and no scientific facts or evidence to support his claim. Thusly, there is no evidence, and it is not a fact, just theory. 2. If NDE's do exist, which I'm not saying they do, then I would imagine that the NDE would be indiscriminatory. 3. Religious orientation is not a factor. I failed to find any evidence in the article to support this. 4. People are convinced of the reality of their NDE experience. Yes, and the woman (whose name escapes me) who tried to drown her kids in the name of God beleived that He told her to too. 5. Drugs do not appear to be a factor "Do not appear"? In this, my opponent seems uncertain, therefore I will push and assert that they might be a factor. 6. NDE's are not hallucinations. If there is no evidence to support that they even exist, how can you make claims to it? You cannot make claims to it. 7. NDE often invovle uparalleled feelings. Becoming brain dead is an uparalleled experience, so I would naturally assume that their feelings would be unparalelled. 8. People lose their fear of death and appreciate life more after having an NDE. That's a personal issue and not one that I feel includes evidence, which I've yet seen, in this debate. 9. People's lives are transformed after having an NDE Again, that's a personal issue and not one that I feel includes evidence in this debate. =My Main Points= 1. My opponents entire case is a fallacy called The Appeal to Ignorance Falacy. 2. My opponent maintains that that one website proves his entire case, and yet the site itself admitted that the process was still ineffective enough to form a groundbreaking scientific discovery. Thus, it's not proven. For the reasons above (of mine, of course), I strongly urge you to.