The Instigator
CrappyDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Itsallovernow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,220 times Debate No: 11134
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

CrappyDebater

Pro

NDE: A near-death experience (NDE), refers to a broad range of personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body; feelings of levitation; extreme fear; total serenity, security, or warmth; the experience of absolute dissolution; and the presence of a light, which some people interpret as a deity.[1] Some see NDEs as a paranormal and spiritual glimpse into the afterlife.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Evidence: 1 a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Afterlife: 1 : an existence after death
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Death: 1 a : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life — compare brain death b : an instance of dying
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Contention 1: NDE's are evidence for an Afterlife

Contention 2: The different range/types of NDE's do not render NDE's as non evidential.

I would like to avoid semantics in this debate, and hope to have a little bit of fun, and maybe learn something. I would also like to avoid getting into a religious debate here.
I will begin my main arguments in the next round.
Itsallovernow

Con

For the record, I appreciate the debate and find humor in the cohesion of our screen names. Without further delay, I shall begain (being the iconoclastic person I am, I will delay a moment more to say thank you again.)

(I find it increasingly difficult not to involve relgion with a debate concerning the possibility of an afterlife, but I'll try not to, despite my position as the Chaplain of our JROTC battalion.)

=Contentions=

1. I accept my opponens definitions, but would like to expound and elaborate upon the definition of "evidence". In law, according to Princeton Dictionary, it is defined as "All the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved." If we assume that the audience is the jury (which, once you think about it, they are) then we would have to provde proof that an "experience" actually took place while the subject in question was dead.
However, no proof could be given other than the persons testimony. Thusly, my opponents ENTIRE case and future case will most likely be one extended fallacy called "The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy".

Allow me to provide 2 examples:
a) "You cannot prove that God does not exist, therfore he does."
b) Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

This is my source and reason for this reasoning.

http://www.nizkor.org...

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 1
CrappyDebater

Pro

I appreciate my opponent taking the time to have this debate, And I also found our screen names humorous. I was also in the JROTC in my High School days, good times.

I realized while creating this debate, that the strongest argument against my proposition would be that of Contention 1 of my opponent. That being, that he would add upon my evidence definition to include the judicial trial as stated.

If I accept this extension of the argument, my side is crushed, and I cannot dare to hope to win.

That being said, I will allow this extension of the definition I have provided, IF my opponent allows me to change the topic of the debate to show, Near Death Experience's (NDE's) should be evidence for Afterlife.

If my opponent accepts this, I will use round 3 to show why it should, or why it will eventually be within the judicial limits of Evidence, described by my opponent.

I thank my opponent once again, and hope this debate is not lost.
Please Vote PRO. Thank you.
Itsallovernow

Con

(Ah, that's very interesting to note about you. We've discussed at our Command and Staff Meeting the positions of the S's (s-1, s-2, etc.) and other positions like XO. I'm going to be the Battalion Commander next year, so I am included in the appointing of people's positions so we can function as a more cohesive unit, for this is our "Year of Change". It's enthralling!)

If the resolution is changed to "Near Death Experience's (NDE's) should be evidence for Afterlife.", then that would automatically make it a relgious debate, something that you said you did not want.

I apoligize, but I find it far too difficult to accurately debate with the resolution changing, the subject changing, and forgeing a new debate entirely in one round and effectively rubutting.

If you had indeed thought of this while making it, then, with all due respect, you should have changed it.

I would enjoy debating you again on the resolution: "Near Death Experience's (NDE's) should be evidence for Afterlife."
But until then, I would not consent to changing the resolution for the last round on the basis of difficulty and impracticality. I hope you understand.

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 2
CrappyDebater

Pro

I thank my opponent for the response, and I am glad to hear he is doing so well within JROTC.

Unfortunately, my opponent has not accepted my original definition, nor my second option for change.
I will be forced to unapprove of his change of my original definition given in round 1.

That being said, I will now show my arguments.
I point to http://www.near-death.com... where Dr. Ken Ring has published a paper regarding consciousness after death. He states that science does not yet have the tools to replicate these events, "science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close." but that should not be means to deny the truth. Example being the Earth thought to be Flat before science had the tools to understand it was round. This perticular link provides fiftyone other links to supporting evidence.

I point to these experiences having occured at time when the individual was literally brain-dead. Described by Cardiologist Michael Sabom, "The patient's body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, her heartbeat and breathing ceased, her brain waves flattened, and the blood was completely drained, and, lectroencephalogram was totally flat (indicating no cerebral electrical activity) and auditory evoked potentials (normally elicited by clicks presented through molded earplugs that had been inserted into her ears) ceased (indicating cessation of brainstem functioning)"

I point to (5) in the same link to a study Dr. Raymond Moody preformed. Moody published five conclusions to the study:
(1) Dr. Moody's research findings are confirmed.
(2) NDEs happen to people of all races, genders, ages, education, marital status, and social class.
(3) Religious orientation is not a factor.
(4) People are convinced of the reality of their NDE experience.
(5) Drugs do not appear to be a factor.
(6) NDEs are not hallucinations.
(7) NDEs often involve unparalleled feelings.
(8) People lose their fear of death and appreciate life more after having an NDE.
(9) People's lives are transformed after having an NDE

This 1 website has enough overwelming evidence for Afterlife.

I would also like to indicate the number of NDE's that occur, and how closely related they are. Most every NDE is accompanied by, "tunnel vortex, a bright light, and different figures in the light"
I show http://www.nderf.org...
This site estimates the number of NDE's too "774 NDEs occurring daily in the United States."
Even if overestimated, his number shows a huge number of occurances.

lastly I point to http://today.msnbc.msn.com...
the article shows "near-death experiences play out remarkably similarly among the people who have had them, crossing age and cultural boundaries to such a degree that they can't be chalked up simply to everyone having seen the same Hollywood movie."

I have shown with this information, that NDE's do occur, and can therefore be clairified as evidence.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to more debates when him in the future.
Please vote PRO, thank you.
Itsallovernow

Con

(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...

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
CrappyDebater, I see your point. Consider, "Lost socks are evidence for creatures from another dimension who eat socks." Yes? No? I think "no" because something being consistent with a theory is not necessarily evidence for the theory. I think what is needed is something that associates the evidence with one theory that explains the event while not supporting other theories. So NDEs are also "evidence" for spirits leaving for the planet Xeon, entry into another dimension, reincarnation, merging life energy with the universe, and reassignment as a rabbit in Arizona. The reason that other explanations consistent with the theory are not seriously considered is that few people are interested in advocating other theories. That said, a lawyer might argue that anything consistent with an alternate theory is "evidence" at some level.
Posted by CrappyDebater 7 years ago
CrappyDebater
the topic was ndes are evidence for afterlife, not proof of afterlife.

there are 2 sides to this argument respectively

The Dying Brain hypothesis.
And the Afterlife Hypothesis.

Both have books written about them.
Both are inconclusive to certain questions.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Near death experiences are similar to those produced by temporary oxygen deprivation to the brain, suggesting that is cause.

Anyway, Con correctly demanded proof that the experiences were associated with an afterlife, and there was no scientific proof.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
"How does this effect people whoms brains are completely INACTIVE?"

your brain is active up to 30 minutes after death.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Better yet, how can you prove the "seeing the light" happens before, after, or during they are technically dead?
Posted by CrappyDebater 7 years ago
CrappyDebater
infam0us I believe you are referring to:
" DMT is exerted by the body only during the REM part of sleep as well as when the body is under enough stress to cause death. That is why when people almost die they talk about hallucinations and seeing sh**, they are actually just tripping the hell out on DMT - T.Labonte"

How does this effect people whoms brains are completely INACTIVE?

Your saying the very lengthy trips are instantaneous?
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
really? no one said DMT? it's the whole reason people have "near death experiences." it actually has nothing to do with the paranormal or religious reasons. when you're about to die, your body releases mass amounts of DMT and you begin tripping b@lls.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
atheistman just gives all the points to the person he thinks won. He's admitted so himself.
Posted by CrappyDebater 7 years ago
CrappyDebater
great, please acknowledge why you gave points for each category specifically.

And please provide a link to the disproof you are talking about.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
The claim that people leave their bodies after death has already been negated.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
CrappyDebaterItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ErodingEthos 7 years ago
ErodingEthos
CrappyDebaterItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
CrappyDebaterItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
CrappyDebaterItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
CrappyDebaterItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24