Yes, you will often hear the word "paradox" applied to the EPR argument. However, EPR themselves do not use that word and it doesn't even appear in the paper. Instead, they argue a syllogism: All complete theories have certain properties; QM does not have one of those properties; therefore QM is not a complete theory. It turns out that their major premise is mistaken (whatever complete theory we end up, whether QM or something else, will not have all of these properties), but this was not apparent at the time and didn't become apparent until decades later.
You pick an interpretation of quantum mechanics and use whatever explanation that interpretation suggests. There's an interesting discussion of some of these issues at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212140.So in your opinion, how to explain the outcomes of Alice Bob spins-experiment and quantum correlation based on causality or based on anything?