Reincarnation is real

"There has never been a double-blind, peer-reviewed reincarnation study published in a SCHOLARLY journal ever, and the reason is because reincarnation testing is being done by invested observers; the studies are never double blind, and the proctors/observers play a large influential role in the results gathered from people." Con does not show a connection with how this means that reincarnation doesn't exist. The reason why it has not been published in a SCHOLARLY journal is because SCHOLARLY doesn't believe in reincarnation, and so therefor, they will not publish it. It may be among the minority to believe in reincarnation, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that the believers of it are part of a minority in this world. "Also, many of the reincarnation claims have someone who claims that they remember a past life, and that they can recall names that of people living then that they couldn't have known naturally. The problem is, in these cases, the "reincarnated" people will say a name of someone who knew the person whose soul is inside of them, like Max, and upon an observer investigating the claim, someone who knew the deceased was found to be named Mark, and because both names begin with M and have one syllable, the observer counts this as a correct match." This argument is flawed due to the fact that there are no sources to debunk the claim you quoted. You just simply state that they will get the data from their claims incorrect, without including sources, and this also ignores my central point which is that most of the data matched with the student's claims, and therefor, it is correct because there is no other possible way to remember it. "Also, many of the reincarnation claims have someone who claims that they remember a past life, and that they can recall names that of people living then that they couldn't have known naturally. The problem is, in these cases, the "reincarnated" people will say a name of someone who knew the person whose soul is inside of them, like Max, and upon an observer investigating the claim, someone who knew the deceased was found to be named Mark, and because both names begin with M and have one syllable, the observer counts this as a correct match." "The same thing goes for physical deformities found on children. Observers in reincarnation studies will see a deformed limb as a knife wound from a previous life, rather than a birth defect related to genetics or pathogens. This speaks to the lack of double blindedness in these studies, and it allows observers to fill in the gaps that don't have a link, but seem linked by some arbitrary association." My previous point can be applied to here. Again, this has no evidence and doesn't debunk my quote sufficiently. "Love requires neurotransmitters and a brain, and neurotransmitters and brains are made of matter. Thoughts aren't made of matter, but blood, the brain, and neurons are made of matter, and there are no thoughts without this matter; thoughts are contingent on matter." Con has not displayed any sources to prove that love requires neurotransmitters and a brain, and even in that case, that only applies to love, as when a soul passes on to another body, they may be incapable of love until they get a new brain with new blood and neurotransmitters. "Again, I cannot address Pro's arguments directly given the rules of the debate, but from what I understand about the "soul" is that it is in fact contingent on matter; humans must exist for a soul to exist." As I have rebutted your argument, no, humans are not required for souls to exist. "If the soul is not spiritual, then it cannot be "the spiritual principle embodied in human beings." "To reiterate, Pro has to prove that something, the soul, is truly spiritual. Remember, it can't be contingent on the material, so something like the mind, which is contingent on the brain therefore contingent on the material, wouldn't be considered immaterial. Pro has to demonstrate that the soul is not contingent on the material to effectively meet his 3 part burden." I have never claimed that a soul was not spiritual, and in this case, substance dualism is the belief that souls are spiritual, and this debate is only between whether souls (reincarnation) exist or not, and souls not being spiritual wouldn't even make them souls, thus, I do not have this burden. On to Con....