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.
Tuesday, September 8, 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 happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Tuesday, September 8, 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.
Should Billionaires Exist?
The US had 13 billionaires in 1982; it has over 800 today. Billionaires gained $5 trillion during the COVID pandemic alone. Is extreme wealth a reward for value creation — or proof of a rigged system? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Should Parents Be Allowed to Genetically Design Their Children?
He Jiankui's 2018 gene-edited babies led most countries to ban germline editing. CRISPR can correct hereditary disease — and select for intelligence before birth. If science makes your child healthier, is it wrong not to? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Is Democracy Still Humanity's Best Bet?
Freedom House reports 18 consecutive years of democratic decline. Churchill called it 'the worst form of government except for all the others.' Is democracy humanity's best answer — or too slow for the crises we face? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Is Nuclear Power Essential to a Clean Future?
Can we reach net zero without nuclear, or is it the only proven carbon-free baseload option? Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.