Humans Have Souls

Even if immaterial = not contingent on the physical, I still win due to the fact that I said: "AS WE KNOW IT" before I made the claim. I also said after the claim: "possibly goes beyond this as my research from Dr. Robert Lanza demonstrated". My opponent has twisted my words into making you THINK that I have attempted to bypass the definition when really I haven't. In regards to the quote, that was a mistake on my behalf however if you exclude [Lanza also believes] from the quote, then the rest of it is a quote. I got the informtion from the book off a reliable site (TIMES), and before the quote it said Lanza also believes. I admittedly forgot to cut that bit out of the quote but that does not warrant the decision to ignore the quote and its value in regards to the debate resolution. My opponent questions my sourcing however they fail to acknowledge two things. a) The same can be said for my opponnet. b) I have used more reliable sourcing than my opponent. Proving (a) is simple. My opponent uses forbes which is an online site in which anybody who signs up with their email address and creates a password can post whatever they like (as long as it isn't inappropriate) [1]. He uses this when he attempts to show that Lanza's theory has been questioned by many. Due to this unreliable source, this could simply all be false. The ONLY citation that he used in this round was TheAmericanScholar. This site is an UNOFFICIAL internet site that provides news [2]. I won't go into detail about why the internet isn't necessarily reliable other than the fact that at this source, you can sign up and make a webiste for free in under an hour [4]. Meaning that virtually anybody can make a website and write about whatever sh!t they like. Furthermore, Dr.Robert Lanza is an extremely busy man who has NEVER written for any unofficial internet sites [4]. He has only given speeches and written books and essays on his research - all of which are copyrighted and have not been published on the internet [4]. Proving (b) is also fairly simple. I have used wikipedia - which, although it can be extremely controversial, the controvery is exaggerated. "In 2005, the peer-reviewed journal Nature asked scientists to compare Wikipedia's scientific articles to those in Encyclopaedia Britannica—"the most scholarly of encyclopedias," according to its own Wiki page. The comparison resulted in a tie; both references contained four serious errors among the 42 articles analyzed by experts.And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute." [5] Due to the fact that this study analyzes scientific articles in particular it is safe to say that Wikipedia's (extremely well sourced) article on Lanza is true. And of course, the usage of Robert Lanza's official site also provides more credibility to my arguments. The people that critiqued Lanza are ultimately irrelevnat due to the new information regarding the reliablility of my opponent's site. Since it is an online site in which anybody can post. It is possibly untrue that these people ciritqued Lanza and sincemy opponent has merely asserted that elements of Lanza's theory are false this also should have no impact upon judges in my opponent's favor. He states that there is no evidence for Lanza's biocentrism idea. Where is his source? Where is the quotation of the assertions that Lanza has made? The answer is that there are no sources provided to back up my opponent's claim and there are no quotation proving what he said either. My opponent's argument is therefore an assertion.Again, my opponent takes my words out of context in regards to the contradiction. What I said in regards to the soul's spirituality was almost completely irrelevant to my case. That was merely a source to show opinions. Even if the source was unreliable, the purpose of it was not to use it as an argument as you can clerely decipher from the minimal detail provided in support of that argument. I said that I am not basing my argument (not the soul), off spirituality. My reasoning (which I thought was evident), was because spirituality is almost impossible to prove. I went with immaterial because I believe it is both immaterial and spiritual however by proving that it is immaterial, I am sufficiently affirming the resolution. I am not arguing that spiritual = religios. If consciousness is the soul (although it may appear to be implied), it does not necessarily neccessitate an intelligent designer / God. The soul can just be a part of evolution [6]. I have already shown the lack of credibility in my opponent's source and therefore the whole rebuttal based around this fails completely. None of this is Lanza's work [4], it either plagiarism of Lanza's work. Or it is BS. If it were plagiarism, it wouldn't have lasted on the internet this long since other examples of plagiarism have been removed in the past [4]. This means that it isn't Robert Lanza's work and is therefore BS. Due to a lack of time, I'll respond to my opponent's rebuttal to my A and B example in the final round. There is no debate structure and my opponent has done the same in regards to refuting points from 2 rounds before (when he addresses the mistake in my quote in which Lanza appears to speak in the third person). Due to this, I should not be penalized for continuing in the following round. [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] https://theamericanscholar.org... [3] http://www.weebly.com...;[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] http://www.livescience.com...;[6] http://www.oxfordscholarship.com...;