Data Centers Debate File Released from DebateUS

Access the file here.

A 200+page DebateUS file that supports debate on the PF resolution, “The United States Federal Government Should Enact a Moratorium on Hyperscale Data Center Construction” has been released.

It’s a full two-sided file, with background evidence, sample contentions, sample rebuttals, frontlines, extensions, and additional evidence for both the PRO and the CON. Everything is carded with citations, so you can read straight from the file or rework it into your own arguments.

The file starts with background — definitions and an overview of how fast data centers are growing and how much power and water they use, in the US and worldwide. This is good for orientation and gives both sides evidence on the current state of the build-out.

From there it lays out a sample case for each side.

The PRO supports the moratorium and runs two contentions.

The first is environmental: hyperscale data centers use enormous amounts of electricity, which drives emissions and warming, and the contention argues that because the climate has irreversible tipping points, every bit of warming we avoid matters. a

The second is AI extinction: hyperscale data centers are what frontier AI is trained on, and the PRO argues that AI is approaching the point where it can improve itself and slip out of human control — and that it could help produce bioweapons — so pausing construction slows AI down and buys time for safety.

The CON opposes the moratorium and also runs two contentions.

The first is China and AI leadership: data centers are the infrastructure behind US AI leadership, and the CON argues that losing the AI race to authoritarian China is its own existential threat, that US leadership is what keeps China cooperating on AI safety, and that even a temporary pause hands China the lead because they are only months behind.

The second is the grid: the grid is strained, but not mainly because of data centers, and data center companies are wealthy enough to help pay to modernize it — while a grid collapse would be its own catastrophe.

The rest of the file gives you what you need to actually debate it out.

There are sample rebuttals for each side — prewritten answers to the other team’s contentions (the PRO answers the China and grid arguments; the CON answers the climate and extinction arguments).

There are frontlines, which are blocks that answer the most common responses so you can extend your arguments after the other team replies — things like answers to “renewables solve,” “no AGI,” “China will develop AI anyway,” or “people hate AI, not data centers.”

There are extensions that take specific arguments further, like the PRO’s “lead means attack” and the CON’s China leadership material. And there is a lot of additional evidence sorted by topic — water, jobs, local economies, electricity prices, finite compute, and more — that you can use to add depth or build new positions. A few sections also cover the politics of data centers heading into the midterms and the national-versus-state question.

The easiest way to use it is to start from your side’s case, take your rebuttals from the matching section, extend through the frontlines, and pull from the extra evidence when you need more on a specific argument.