For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt.
Skip to main content
Model Diplomat LogoModel Diplomat

For debate teams · Lincoln-Douglas · Public Forum · World Schools · Parliamentary

Research faster. Argue better.

Model Diplomat gives competitive debaters sourced political research, both-sides argument mapping, and AI opponents that push back — on any international or policy topic.

90,000+

Students on the platform

193

Countries with sourced positions

Both sides

Of every motion, mapped

Sound familiar?

01

Political topics require deep sourcing

LD, PF, and World Schools increasingly feature geopolitical resolutions where sourcing really matters. General web searches return opinion pieces — not the primary sources that win rounds.

02

You need both sides, fast

Prep time is short. Knowing the strongest version of the opposing case — including the real policy arguments foreign governments make — is the difference between winning and losing a close round.

03

Generic AI can't argue international topics credibly

ChatGPT doesn't know what the G77 argues at climate negotiations, where India stands on nuclear non-proliferation, or what the humanitarian-law framework says.

What you get.

Cited research from primary sources

Model Diplomat pulls from UN documents, government policy records, and verified geopolitical databases. Every claim is traceable — the kind of evidence that wins rounds.

Both-sides argument mapping

Ask Model Diplomat to surface the strongest arguments for and against any international position. See what real governments and institutions argue, not what blogs speculate.

AI opponents that argue real positions

Practice rounds against AI that defends actual country positions. It pushes back on unsupported claims and introduces counterarguments you haven't considered.

Country and bloc position research

Understand what the US, China, EU, African Union, or G77 argue on any issue — with sources. Essential for international and geopolitical resolutions.

Courses on international relations and diplomacy

Build foundational knowledge on how international law works, what drives state behavior, and how multilateral negotiations operate — context that makes your arguments more credible.

Fast enough for tournament prep

Research a topic and map out arguments in minutes, not hours. Exactly what you need the night before a tournament.

Common questions.

Does it work for Public Forum topics that aren't about diplomacy?

Model Diplomat is strongest on international affairs, geopolitics, and foreign policy topics. For purely domestic policy resolutions, the coverage is more limited — though it works well for the international angle of any resolution.

Can it help me prep for both sides of a resolution?

Yes. Ask Model Diplomat to map the strongest pro and con arguments on any international topic, referencing what real governments and institutions argue.

Is it useful for World Schools Debate?

Very much so. World Schools motions often feature international law, foreign policy, and geopolitical topics where deep, sourced research is a major advantage.

How is it different from ChatGPT, Claude, or Perplexity?

General AI searches the open web. Model Diplomat draws from a curated political and diplomatic corpus — verified sources, structured country positions, citations anchored to documents that exist (UN resolutions, foreign-ministry statements, treaty text). On an international debate motion, the difference shows up the moment your opponent asks where the evidence came from.

Better research. Stronger cases.

90,000+ students already use Model Diplomat for political research. Free to sign up — start researching your next topic in minutes.

No credit card · Works on any device · Free tier always available

Live example for debate teams

See it answer a real question.

Every Model Diplomat answer cites real primary sources. Nothing fabricated.

Strongest arguments for and against universal jurisdiction.

Universal jurisdiction (UJ) — the principle that domestic courts can prosecute grave international crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture) regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of perpetrator or victim — is most strongly defended on three grounds: (a) it closes accountability gaps when territorial states won't prosecute; (b) Geneva Convention Article 49 and the UN Torture Convention Article 5(2) impose UJ obligations on state parties; (c) it deters elites who travel internationally.1

The strongest counter-arguments target both principle and practice: (a) UJ in absentia (Belgium 1993–2003, Spain's pre-2014 statute) caused diplomatic crises and was rolled back; (b) selectivity — Western states overwhelmingly prosecute non-Western defendants, raising legitimacy concerns; (c) sovereignty objection — UJ functionally lets one state's courts override another's prosecutorial decisions; (d) procedural fairness — distance from witnesses, evidence, and the affected community can compromise trials.2

Empirically, UJ cases that succeeded (Pinochet 1998 UK, Habré 2016 Senegal, Anwar R. 2022 Germany) shared three features: territorial-state cooperation or collapse, defendant present in forum state, and ICC complementarity not invoked. The 'complementarity-first' framework (ICC as default, UJ as gap-filler) is the dominant modern position.3

Sources

1

Universal Jurisdiction — A Preliminary Survey of Legislation Around the World

Amnesty International (updated periodically)

2

Reydams, Universal Jurisdiction — International and Municipal Legal Perspectives

Oxford University Press

3

Prosecutor v. Habré — Extraordinary African Chambers

EAC Judgment, May 2016

Run this query — or your own — in Model Diplomat AI Search.

Try this query
Model Diplomat AI sharpens my MUN game — helping me craft burning POIs, expose contradictions, and argue with precision.
Abhiroop Singh

Abhiroop Singh

MUN Delegate