Should We Pause the Race to Build AGI?
The EU AI Act is now law; the US has no binding legislation. In 2023, over 1,000 researchers signed an open letter calling for a pause on frontier AI training. Should we slow down for safety — or does a pause just hand the lead to bad actors? Two debaters. Assigned sides. You pick the winner.
Wednesday, July 29, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
A pause without global buy-in is unilateral disarmament. A race without safety guardrails is a bet on alignment being solved under competitive pressure. Both paths have real risks.
The Matchup
The Positions
Racing toward AGI without solved alignment is gambling with civilizational stakes. A coordinated pause is the responsible move.
- Capability is outpacing alignment research; a pause creates space for safety science to catch up
- Competitive pressure is itself the problem. International coordination can break the race dynamic.
- The potential downside of getting AGI wrong is irreversible; precaution has asymmetric value
Debater: To be announced
A pause only works if every actor complies. It won't, so it just cedes ground to less safety-conscious developers.
- Unilateral pauses by responsible labs only shift development to jurisdictions with weaker safety cultures
- Safety research advances faster with more capable systems to study. Pausing slows the science we need.
- Open innovation ensures safety technology is widely accessible, not locked up by a handful of regulated labs
Debater: To be announced
Join the debate
Make Your Case
Record a 60-second video on either side — or make it in writing. The strongest cases get featured before the live debate.
“We don't allow pharmaceutical companies to sell untested drugs. We don't let airlines fly untested planes. Yet we release increasingly powerful AI systems with no safety testing framework, no regulatory approval, and no mechanism to recall them if they cause harm.”
“The race between AI labs to build the most powerful model incentivizes cutting corners on safety. A coordinated pause would break this destructive dynamic and give researchers time to develop alignment techniques before systems become too powerful to control.”
No con: no pause arguments yet
How It Works
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish
Opening Argument
PRO · opening case
Cross-Examination
CON questions PRO
Opening Argument
CON · opening case
Cross-Examination
PRO questions CON
Rebuttal
PRO
Rebuttal
CON
Closing Statement
PRO · final case
Closing Statement
CON · final case
Audience Vote
You pick the winner
~28 minutes of debate · audience vote follows closing statements
Don't Miss It
Stay in the Loop
The debate drops when the two sides are confirmed. Get the email the moment it goes live.
Premieres
Wednesday, July 29, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Get Involved
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
More Debates
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.
Jordan vs. LeBron: The GOAT SuperDebate
Watch the full recorded Jordan vs. LeBron GOAT basketball debate, argued by championship debaters, then score both debaters live.
DEI: More Harm Than Good?
DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Wilfred Reilly and Armand Domalewski debate whether DEI programs move institutions toward equality, or create a new paradigm for inequality.
UBI Debate: Should America Have a Universal Basic Income?
Scott Santens (PRO) vs Malcolm Collins (CON) debate the resolution: "An unconditional basic income would be net beneficial for American citizens." — July 10, 2026, 2 PM CT.
Messi vs Ronaldo: Who Is the Soccer GOAT?
Two debaters. Assigned sides. Cross-examination. One argues the case for Messi, the other for Ronaldo — in a structured debate format with opening arguments and rebuttals.