As a proponent I would have changed from for to against on the strength of this 'argument' !:(
Eben spent the whole thing arguing the case on the strength of his own NDE ? He is convinced, the point was to try convince others! Moody kept saying that basically the question couldn't be argued using science, and seemed to be past caring ? That's fine - but why enter the debate ?
Alexander used Gary Schwarz's name when the point against Novella saying PSI was not proven was just crying out for Dean Radin ! In my opinion it would be far easier to argue the case against Psychics than it would against PSI, even Frank Matera here on this forum, he himself a psychic, has expressed dismay at how corrupted the psychic field has become. Why did he leave it until the final summary, when he could not confront Novella with the question, did he bring up Autistic Sauvants and better (imo) , deathbed lucidity, where the people have been making no sense for years sometimes and shortly before dying talk perfectly normally to relatives ?
Jeez, I'm a nobody that has had a stroke, and if I could talk properly I could have put up a better argument !!!
I thought that even though Moody seemed a bit 'dreamy' in his thoughts, that he is closest to the truth. This world we live in is deliberately confusing, it is by design I believe. Until we are destined to have a personal experience for whatever reason, we cannot be 100% sure( even then there may still be a tiny bit of doubt). It felt like Alexander and Moody were feeling for an answer where the other two were convinced they already have the answer. Instinctively I think they are wrong, the answers are beyond all our imaginations.