Infinita: Building the World Championship of Adult Debate
We're launching the first global championship for adult debate. 32 teams, 6 preliminary rounds, single elimination finals. Here's the complete format, the philosophy behind it, and how to compete.
John Connor
Technology Strategist
We're creating the first world championship for adult debate: 32 teams, Swiss-system prelims, single-elimination finals, transparent judging. Registration opens March 2026. The goal isn't just a tournament—it's proving that competitive intellectual discourse can work at scale.
The Gap That Shouldn't Exist
High school has nationals. College has worlds. Parliament has its circuits. But after graduation? Nothing. The infrastructure for competitive adult debate simply doesn't exist.
This absence is strange when you think about it. The skills debate develops—rigorous argumentation, perspective-taking, grace under pressure—become more important as you advance in your career, not less. CEOs, lawyers, scientists, policymakers: the people making consequential decisions are the ones who most need these skills sharp.
The ancient Athenians understood this. The agora wasn't just a marketplace—it was where citizens gathered to argue, persuade, and be persuaded. Participation in public discourse was a civic duty. Pericles didn't just give speeches; he won debates. The Sophists weren't just teachers; they were coaches training the next generation of public thinkers.
We've lost this. Modern life has no agora. We have Twitter, which optimizes for outrage. We have podcasts, which are monologues. We have meetings, which are power contests. But we have no structured place for citizens to practice the craft of disagreeing well.
Infinita is my attempt to rebuild that infrastructure. Here's exactly how it works.
The Format: Four Months of Design
We spent four months testing formats before landing on this structure. The constraints we optimized for:
| Constraint | Why It Matters | Our Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Accessible to newcomers | Most adults haven't debated since school | No jargon; 15-min prep included |
| Challenging for veterans | Former debaters need real competition | Swiss pairing matches skill levels |
| Engaging to watch | Debate must be spectator-friendly to grow | Strict time limits; cross-ex drama |
| Objectively judged | Perception of fairness is existential | 4-criteria rubric; peer accountability |
| Sustainable economics | Must work without massive sponsorship | $50 entry; digital-first prelims |
Tournament Structure
- Teams: 32 teams of 2 people each (64 total competitors)
- Preliminary Rounds: 6 rounds, Swiss-system pairing
- Elimination: Top 8 teams advance to single-elimination bracket
- Finals: Best-of-3 championship round
Why Swiss-system pairing? After round 2, every team faces opponents with similar records. This means competitive matches throughout—no 6-0 teams crushing 0-6 teams in later rounds. It also makes the competition self-balancing: you rise until you hit your level.
Individual Round Format
Each debate follows this exact structure:
Topic Reveal (0:00)
Both teams learn the resolution simultaneously. No advance notice.
Prep Time (15 min)
Research and strategize with your partner. Internet access allowed—real-world debates don't ban research.
First Affirmative (6 min)
Build the case for the resolution. Must present constructive arguments, not just rebuttals.
Cross-Examination by Negative (3 min)
Direct questioning. This is where debates get interesting—you're testing the other side's reasoning in real time.
First Negative (6 min)
Refute affirmative case and build counter-case. Must engage directly with opponent's arguments.
Cross-Examination by Affirmative (3 min)
Now the affirmative tests the negative's reasoning.
Second Speeches (4 min each)
Extend arguments, address attacks, crystallize key issues. Time pressure forces prioritization.
Closing Statements (2 min each)
Summary and voting issues. What should judges weigh most heavily?
Total round time: 45 minutes including prep. Short enough to stay sharp, long enough for substantive clash.
The Judging System: Accountable and Transparent
Traditional debate judging is a black box. One judge, subjective criteria, no accountability. This is how you get reputation-based judging where established teams always win and newcomers feel cheated.
We've rebuilt judging from scratch.
Four Criteria, Independently Scored (1-10 each)
| Criterion | Weight | What "10" Looks Like | What "1" Looks Like |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argumentation | 40% | Airtight logic with compelling evidence | Assertions without support |
| Clash | 30% | Every major argument addressed and dismantled | Ships passing in the night |
| Delivery | 15% | Compelling, clear, professional | Difficult to follow |
| Strategy | 15% | Masterful choices; perfect partner coordination | Self-defeating decisions |
"Why only 15% for delivery? Isn't persuasion about presence?"
Partially. But optimizing for delivery creates style-over-substance incentives. We want debaters who win through better arguments, not better performance. 15% rewards good communication without letting charisma trump logic.
Peer Judging with Accountability
Judges are drawn from competing teams not in the current round. Three judges per debate. Here's the accountability mechanism:
- Every judge's scores are recorded permanently
- Outlier detection flags scores that deviate significantly from co-judges
- Post-tournament analysis identifies consistently biased judges
- Judge reputation scores affect future tournament eligibility
This creates skin in the game. Judge unfairly, and it follows you. The system self-corrects.
Topic Selection: The Issues That Matter
Topics are drawn from five categories, announced 48 hours before each round:
| Category | Example | Why Include It |
|---|---|---|
| Policy | "The US should implement universal basic income" | Real decisions facing real governments |
| Values | "Privacy is more important than security" | Forces philosophical precision |
| Factual | "AI will create more jobs than it destroys by 2035" | Empirical reasoning skills |
| Strategy | "Startups should prioritize growth over profitability" | Business judgment calls |
| Counterfactual | "The internet has been net negative for democracy" | Historical reasoning; second-order effects |
Topics are selected to be genuinely debatable (reasonable people disagree), accessible (no specialized expertise required), consequential (the answer matters), and balanced (neither side is obviously correct).
NFT Trophies: Why Blockchain
Winners receive NFT trophies minted on Solana. I know—"NFT" triggers skepticism. But this isn't crypto for crypto's sake. It solves real problems:
| Problem | Traditional Solution | Our Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Verification | "I won a tournament" is unverifiable | On-chain trophy is cryptographically proven |
| Permanence | Platforms shut down; physical trophies get lost | On-chain records persist indefinitely |
| Portability | Track record locked in one system | Competitive history travels with you |
I was wrong about NFTs in 2021. I thought they were primarily about speculation and digital art. The actual value proposition—verifiable, portable credentials—took me longer to understand. Infinita trophies aren't about trading; they're about proof.
How to Compete
Step 1: Find a Partner
You need a teammate. Ideally someone who complements your style:
- If you're analytical, find someone with presence
- If you're aggressive, find someone measured
- If you're new, find someone experienced (or another newcomer willing to learn together)
Post in our Discord (#partner-search) or attend a local club night to meet potential partners.
Step 2: Practice
We're running training sessions January-February 2026:
- Format workshops: Learn the structure
- Practice rounds: Judge and be judged
- Strategy sessions: Advanced techniques for veterans
Step 3: Register
Registration opens March 1, 2026. Limited to 32 teams. Entry fee: $50/team (covers platform costs and prize pool contribution).
Step 4: Compete
Preliminary rounds: April 2026 (online, scheduled flexibly)
Elimination rounds: May 2026 (live event, location TBA)
Why "Infinita"?
The name comes from James Carse's distinction between finite and infinite games. Finite games are played to win and end. Chess, football, elections. There's a winner and a loser; then the game is over.
Infinite games are played to keep playing. The goal isn't to win—it's to continue the game, to bring in new players, to evolve the rules so the game improves over time.
Politics has become a finite game—destroy the opponent, win at all costs. Debate should be infinite. You compete to improve. You win to keep playing. You lose and come back better.
Infinita 2026 is year one. Someone wins. Then 2027 starts, and they're back to zero. The game continues. That's the point.
The Bigger Picture
This isn't just a tournament. It's infrastructure.
If Infinita works, we scale it: regional championships, age divisions, topic specializations, corporate leagues. A complete competitive ecosystem for adult intellectual development.
The Greeks had the agora. We're building the modern equivalent: a place where adults sharpen their minds against each other and leave as better thinkers.
- Join our Discord — superdebate.org/discord — to find partners and practice
- Attend a local club — Get comfortable with structured debate before competing
- Mark March 1, 2026 — Registration opens at superdebate.org