BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)
Psi, or psychic powers, exist.

Now that we have reached the last round, I'll explain to the voters why I have won this debate. First, my opponent never presented good evidence that psychic powers exist. He cited a research study (Stargate Project) and used that as his only evidence. I have explained in the second round why that was not a scientifically sound experiment, and cannot be used as evidence. To reiterate, there was not a control group used in the experiment. The "predictions" were often general enough to be easily hit. Their experiment was not replicated by another group of researchers. Lastly, the AIR, responsible for evaluating the research, concluded that the experiment must be carried out again with better scientific procedures in order to draw conclusions from it. In essence, the experiment does not "prove" in any way that psychic powers exist. In science, in order to prove something, tons of experiments must be done by different groups of researchers, and then submit their results for peer review. My opponent simply cited a single research that was poorly conducted. My opponent failed to rebut this in his last round, as he simply cited TWO instances that would support his case. As I have already said, in order to prove something in science, experiments must be done in certain ways, and a anecdotal piece of evidence (which is what my opponent has given in his third round) is useless in science. Someone who claimed to have a psychic experience cannot get their story verified if it didnt happen in a laboratory condition. Second, my opponent tried to make the case the psychic powers exist from the fact that there are many people who believe psychic powers exist. My opponent never rebut my counter argument, in which I said that there were many "facts" we humans once believed in great numbers, yet no one believes in them now", and that a scientific claim cannot be judged on its validity based on the number of people who believe it to be true, but instead, based on actual evidence. Lastly, I said that if there really is good reasons to believe that psychic powers exist, why do most scientists deny it. My opponent said that "Maybe some scientists just don't want to put their reputations on the line". He does not realize that if there IS good evidence, then scientists wouldn't risk their reputation if they believe it. They only risk their reputation because there AREN'T good evidence for it.
Psi, or psychic powers, exist.

As I said in the comments, do not use the fact that I started this debate to make it easier for you. I will provide one of what you requested, which is as follows: (paraphrased) "A study or research paper from a reliable source." http://www.calder.net... Project Scanate, A.K.A. Operation Stargate. Scanate meant Scan By Coordinates, and that's exactly what they did. They gave 'psychics' the coordinates of certain places, and asked the psychics to describe them. The psychics would've had an unusually high success rate if it was simple luck that they were using. However, they would have an average success rate if they were using the psychic phenomena named 'Remote Viewing' which is exactly what they claim to have done, and exactly what they did. You tell me which is more likely: Very high luck, or some largely undiscovered talent of the human brain being put to use. Also, I want to leave you with a question, and two links. In these links you will find more links that will support my claim, however I right now am running out of time and don't want to risk losing what I have written so far. Psipog.com Psionicsonline.com Now, tell me, why would a large group of people believe in something that didn't exist, especially if it was 'disproved' before their time? Why would humans believe in something that has no proof? The answer is: Because there is proof. As I pointed out above, in Project Scanate, psychics are real, and successful. That is proof enough for some. It's proof enough for me, and for many others.
Psi, or psychic powers, exist.

The topic before us is "Psi, or psychic powers, exist." Based on the wikipedia links my opponent provides, it is safe to say by "psi/psychic powers", he means the ability to do things that cannot be explained with the current scientific knowledge. This includes telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and scores of other "special abilities". By the word "exist", in this context, it should mean that there are human beings who do have these abilities. Since the burden of proof lies with my opponent, I will just enumerate what my opponents must prove in this debate. My opponent must cite experiments that would show the existence of psychic powers. These experiments must be legitimate, and follow the standards of science. This means that there must a near-impossible chance of error or deception. Usually, the standards of science entails the use of placebo, peer-review, double-blind, etc. Since this is an online debate, presumably, my opponent would be using online websites as a source of evidence. These websites also must be reliable sources. By that, I mean the websites cannot be intended for selling products, it must be ran by people who are reputable, and other conditions that may apply.
i (austin) am the sexiest person ever

No matter what I think, all I have to prove is that Austin, is not the sexiest man alive. Even he admits that he isn't, so therefore I WIN because he doesn't affirm properly because he doesn't fit the resolution of the sexiest person EVER. So, therefore I win becasue I have proven that Austin has no idea what he is talking about, and he is NOT the sexiest person EVER. Thank you.
i (austin) am the sexiest person ever

It may be true that Austin is sexy, but this DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS THE SEXIEST PERSON EVER. He only said that he is sexy, not that he is the sexiest. Therefore you default negative because the affirmative does not soley achieve the resloution. I would like to state that, I however am the sexiest person in the world, because in my state of mind, I am beautiful. Thank you.
i (austin) am the sexiest person ever

NOT TRUE AUSTIN TO be the sexiest person in the world, the majority of the people must say you are the sexiest. If I were to go ask ever girl, (or boy) who the sexiest guy in the world was, not ever .0001% of all people would say Austin Essex. Infact, you don't even specify girl or boy, and I am absolutly positive that if you google, The sexiest person in the world, YOUR NAME WOULDN'T EVEN COME UP. Therefore I have proven that Austin isn't the sexiest person in the world, even if he's *sexy?*. Negative wins. If you vote aff, you are bias and shouldn't be on a debate website.
i (austin) am the sexiest person ever

ok just to say this my opponent is making false claims about me saying i though i was not sexy i am totaly conceded and do think i am the sexiest person ever and to point this out to u cameron the judge is the person who evaluates the round and in all the comments the specatators who we must substitute as the judges have agreed that i am the sexiest person in the world and that means the judges have voted pro so the round is basically over and i have won thx guys for the awesome comments
The values of the constitution are being implied only when it is convenient for society.

I understand completely about the paper elphaba, don't worry about it. By "clause" do you mean the Establishment Clause? Because you have not refuted my point that, today, our society is very conscientious about the separation of church and state. By saying that the clause "doesn't always hold true", you are making a statement with no supporting facts. I would like to close by saying that, while it is true that we must prevent the rise of a theocracy, to say that America today is on the road to a theocracy is ignoring many obvious facts about current American life. We are a very, if not the most, religiously diverse nation in the world, and practically no American, except for a few religious extremists, would advocate a theocracy based on their religious precepts. Thus, I can say, as a Christian, that I am blessed to live in a country that allows religious freedom. Thank you for the debate, elphaba.
The values of the constitution are being implied only when it is convenient for society.

Thanks to my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic. First of all, I take issue with my opponent describing the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to mean that "means that religion and the law will not conflict". This is not true. For example, Justice Souter described the Clause as saying "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion" (Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...). This interpretation has generally been the one that has been accepted, both before and after Joel v. Grumet. Thus, the clause deals with the government trying establish a national religion, or discourage some religious groups from practicing in the country. My opponent, on the other hand, sought to portray the Establishment Clause as prohibiting laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs, such as her example of homosexual marriage. First off, these laws do not outlaw homosexual marriage, but rather codify marriage as being between a man and a woman. Besides, how does such an action qualify as a government giving preference to a religion? Is it because these actions are supported by religious groups? If this is your reasoning, elphaba, you are thus describing all laws supported by religious groups as being in violation of the Establishment Clause, and are restricting the voice of religious people, ipso facto, in the government. In short, you are taking away their Constitutional right of self-determination and participation. In sum, laws that do not give preference, or non-preference, to a religion do not fall under the aegis of the Establishment Clause. This ties into my second issue with my opponent, that the Establishment Clause is enforced only when convenient for society. I have already shown that homosexual marriage does not fall under the aegis of the Establishment Clause, and that my opponent's argument is moot. In a country in which all branches of government go out of the way to be "inclusive" of all religions, I find it amazing the my opponent makes the claim that our country is heading down the road to a theocracy. My opponent seems to base this fact on the ballot initiatives that codified marriage as between a man and a woman. However, she seems to conveniently ignore many court cases that have found against what she would deem "religious laws". These cases include Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut. My opponent also ignores the many non-denominational prayer breakfasts in Congress, and the the President's many meetings with members of Islam and Christianity and people of every other religious stripe. These rulings and actions by our government as being inconsistent. Quite the opposite, they show a government that is constantly seeking to make all people, regardless of religious stripe, feel included.
The values of the constitution are being implied only when it is convenient for society.

"Seperation of Church & State" as outlined in the Constitution, means that religion and the law will not conflict. So long as religion does not break any laws or harms others. It is meant to be constantly enforced; however, it is only implied when it is convenient for society. An example if this is the case of Roy Moore and his attempt to keep the 10 commandments monument in the courthouse. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." While the United States has not made a law commanding that all her citizens be a certain religion, I believe that it is slowly going in that direction. One campaign slogan you hear repeatedly in elections is "good christian values." And seeing as how 85% of the nation is Christian, that does appeal to the nation as a whole. However, the problem that I have with this is when the government (whether national, state, or federal) impliments laws based solely on religion. An example of this would be homosexual marriage; many states have made it illegal because marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman by the constitution, which was established on the basis of the Bible. This is when seperation of church and state is not honored, because homosexual marriages are illegal according to state because it is wrong in the Bible; however, Roy Moore was removed from office because he refused to have the 10 commandments removed, on the basis that it violates "seperation of church and state." If "seperation of church and state" is written in the constitution, then it should be honored all the time. Not just when it is convenient for the country.
Flash vs Quicksilver

Both are speedsters (those who have the power to travel faster than normal). The Flash Family are the masters of the Speedforce. Quicksilver can't run around the world in 10 seconds. Flash can. The Speedforce IS speed. Quicksilver's ability's have a limit. Petro(or is it Pedro? The Accent throws me off.) was born with super-speed unlike the Flash who is a catalyst for the Speedforce. The Speedforce is unlimited. Only a mental block stops the Flash from BECOMING part of the Speedforce. Mutation vs Speed itself. Loyal Flash-fan, Midnight_Wind
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

The distance to all other galaxies is so far, that the light takes millions, usually billions of years to reach us. With such large time frames involved, we cannot assume that extraterrestrials exist, and we cannot assume that life can exist. So am I to understand you are proposing that mankind will somehow break all known laws of physics to find these life forms on places we can't verify exist across distances we can never cover even if we had extra solar craft able to go one hundred thousand times the speed of light? If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is no, it doesn't. The reason is, sound is made when we process it in our brains and make out a sound. For life to exist, it must be interpreted as life. If I burn a paper, it moves, it splits apart, creating more burning papers, and creates offspring of ash, all the while consuming air. But is it alive? Of course it isn't. Just the same, inanimate objects can do lifelike actions without being alive, as life can only be evaluated as life by other life. So you cannot assume that life exists just because there is an environment to support it. Therefore, unless you have some way to prove other forms of life, you cannot consider there to be life
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

"if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago." Aliens mean any sort of life, not just what we would call "intelligent". If the life is intelligent, I do not see why we would be aware of it for a long time. Why would they send out signals to space? How large is the chance that we would be able to intercept this signal in the vastness of space? 0.000000001%? Considering the sheer size of space, it is very probable that there are other planets with hospitable conditions, fit for life. Frankly, I think it is ignorant to believe that we are the only planet among trillions that have life. "That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick," According to evolution, living things have been on Earth for about 2 billion years. It took 2 billion years for organisms to evolve to the level of humans. That is not quick.
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago. That intelligent life would really only have to succeed on one other occasion to propagate throughout the galaxy by this present point in time. That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick, that if it were easily developed elsewhere in the universe, it would have had many opportunities in the distant past to do so, of which at least one other species would have succeeded by now if it were possible. That it has not, or that we are not aware of any, suggests that either it has never happened, or has happened in a way in which we will never be aware. And that therefore our understanding of ET life is not likely to ever change.
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

It is, in fact, NOT reasonable to believe that aliens don't exist. "aliens cannot exist" Why not? "i have not seen good hard proof of an alien before" Just because my opponent has not seen "good hard proof" before does not mean they do not exist. "wouldn't they evolve just as fast as us and we would have gotten radio signals from them?" Evolution is affected by many factors and not all organisms evolve at the same rate. They may have started evolving later than us, meaning they would not be at our stage of development. Even if they are at our stage of development, it is no guarantee that we would receive signals from them. Space is vast, and these signals could easily be lost in it. With billions of stars in space, it is very probable that there is life somewhere else other than Earth. Water is a key ingredient for life and there are many celestial objects, even in our own solar system, that have liquid water. Radio signals have, in fact, been found. There have been multiple cases where we could not explain the origin of certain signals that seemingly came from space. Life always finds a way. Organisms thrive even in the harshest of environments. There are microbes from Earth known as extremophiles that can survive under the surface of Mars. http://www.nbcnews.com... Overall, I do not see why one would think that there is no more life anywhere in this gigantic, ever-expanding universe.
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

"The distance to all other galaxies is so far, that the light takes millions, usually billions of years to reach us. With such large time frames involved, we cannot assume that extraterrestrials exist, and we cannot assume that life can exist." Forgive me for misunderstanding, but I do not see what light-years have to do with extraterrestrial life. It only proves that space is enormous and the chance of a planet having hospitable conditions is high. "So am I to understand you are proposing that mankind will somehow break all known laws of physics to find these life forms on places we can't verify exist across distances we can never cover even if we had extra solar craft able to go one hundred thousand times the speed of light?" I said nothing about "breaking physics" and finding lifeforms on other planets. We are arguing whether or not it is reasonable to believe that they exist. Not about finding them. "If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is no, it doesn't." Why not? sound1 sound/ noun 1. sound produced by continuous and regular vibrations, as opposed to noise. The definition of sound means that the tree will still make a sound. It will create vibrations through the medium that it is in (air). "For life to exist, it must be interpreted as life. If I burn a paper, it moves, it splits apart, creating more burning papers, and creates offspring of ash, all the while consuming air. But is it alive? Of course it isn't." You do not define living things by whether it moves. Cars move but they are not living. Living things are determined by whether or not it has functioning cells. "So you cannot assume that life exists just because there is an environment to support it." Actually you can. It is reasonable to believe that there is life in places where the environment can support life.
Religious Conversion

I believe that trying to convert someone is harassment because you are most likely putting them into an uncomfortable situation in which they may have to walk away from. Talking about conversion to people who you don't know and have no clue how they could react may cause them to slip into a depression if they have a bad history with religion or if it upsets them in any way. Stating that you could simply "walk away" is proof that conversion invades people's personal space and privacy, making the one who is trying to convert the person a possible target for harassment charges by the person who they were trying to convert. As you may have participated in/been troubled by the group of commonly known/heard of conversionists, the Jehovah witnesses, you must know that they go from door to door trying to convince you that what they have to say is more important than your life at that moment in time; they do this while they are trespassing on your property and possibly inconveniencing you and/or your family. I mean all this in a general point of view, by "you" I mean anyone who reads this.
Religious Conversion

I will simply say that religious conversion is not a forcible act. If one is trying to convert you, you can simply walk away. If we make discussing conversion illegal then that would be a violation of our freedom of speech. Since my opponent has not given any argument I have no requirement to argue at all. My opponent Forfeited so I should win. If so my opponent chooses to rejoin the debate then we can actually have a decision to make. Until then we will coast.
Religious Conversion

This was a great topic to debate about and I hope this is a very interesting discussion. Thanks to my opponent for instigating the debate. My opponent made no rule or round structure, so, I think will offer too. I suggest that round 1 is only for acceptance and the last round no new arguments can be made. The only rule I think we need is that Pro has all the BOP. She instigated the debate and made positive claims therefore she should be held to proved proof for them. Let's establish some definitions from Merriam's. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Convert:1) to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another Religious:1) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity Illegal:1) not according to or authorized by law Should be:1) what needs to beIf my opponent has any issues with my definitions she should stress them in round 2.