near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife

I could not see the difference in URL's, but somehow, the one provided in this round worked. The only thing I will say about the source is that I grant it little credibility. It is the personal blog of someone named M. Mahin who claims to have a BS in Philosophy; not someone I would consider an expert in neurochemistry, and how drugs affect brains. I will however, expand on PRO's arguments presently. Ketamine PRO has argued that ketamine does not induce a near-death experience because it does not provide individuals with the experience of meeting gods or dead relatives. However, PRO admits that she cannot demonstrate that these things actually occur, while simultaneously allowing that ketamine does have the effect of “freaky hallucinatory occurrences. ” Since meeting dead relatives cannot be verified, it may well fit into the category of “ hallucinatory occurrences,” so my point is validated. Pam Reynolds I have already explained how Ms. Reynolds may have been able to explain the instruments, that informed consent required that she be informed about the procedure, and I provided a source that contained additional explanations, such as the familiarity of the instruments to that of a familiar dentist's drill, or the fact that she didn't recount the story to anyone for three days, so that she had time to gain the knowledge [1]. Ignoring? PRO has accused me of ignoring her points, but she is mistaken. I addressed every point she made. I did not address additional points made by her source because I was not required to. Sources back up arguments, and I address my opponent’s arguments. It is not my responsibility to comb through all of PRO's sources and debunk every claim made. However, since PRO did bring up additional cases in this round, I will address them here. PRO's Additional Claims One of PRO's claims is that a woman allegedly read numbers from far away during an NDE. However, once I wend down the rabbit hold of PRO's source, I found a vague reference to a “young woman” (no name was provided), and a reference to a paper published in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research (no title was provided) [2]. The one about the man who diagnosed the broken arm is also questionable as not only could I not verify the story, I found quotes from the man that contradict the account provided by PRO's source. He himself has said that it was a broken hip, not an arm [3], so the whole account is questionable to begin with, let alone being unverifiable. The final case PRO notes is about a man who came into an Emergency Department (allegedly) dead, but somehow recalls events. Again, there is no name provided, and no evidence other than the researcher who supposedly published an article in The Lancet, but again, no title was provided [4]. All of these stories make extraordinary claims, and therefore require extraordinary evidence. As Hume taught us, we need to proportion our belief to the evidence, as there is no evidence provided, we should not believe any of these claims. What Do I Want? PRO asks what I want as evidence for the afterlife; my answer is that I would like evidence that is verifiable and repeatable. I'm not exactly sure what form that evidence could take, but it isn't my claim, and therefore, it isn't my problem. As it is the default position to not believe claims until evidence is provided, PRO's failure to provide such evidence is sufficient cause to not believe. The Resolution I feel that we have gotten off track here during this debate, so I would like to conclude by revisiting the resolution. The claim made by PRO at the instigation of this debate is that “near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife. ” I have never addressed this claim head on, because I kept waiting for PRO to defend it with argumentation and evidence; but she never did. Someone who experiences a “near death experience,” is near-death, and therefore, by definition, not dead. As someone who is not dead, they have zero insight on anything after death, and cannot make any reliable claims regarding any “life” after death. Therefore, it cannot be said that “near death experiences are a good reason to believe in the afterlife. ” In fact, since those who were near-death cannot have any special insight into anything after death, their experiences are bad reasons to believe in the afterlife. In Closing To sum up the debate, PRO made a claim that is, by definition, untenable. I have addressed every single one of her arguments, however, even if I granted them, they do not support the resolution. PRO has failed to support her claim, and I have shown that the opposite is the case. Sources [1]. http://www.neardth.com...[2]http://www.near-death.com...[3]http://www.ianlawton.com...[4]http://www.near-death.com...