High School Ethics Bowl
A report from Anaelle Tadros and Jordin Lim of the Ethics Club
The National High School Ethics Bowl is an annual event where schools across the country compete in debates on ethical dilemmas. On February 8, 2025, twenty California teams represented their schools to discuss sixteen ethics cases that were available to them prior to the competition. The Science Academy Ethics team, consisting of Elodia Honigstein, Ava-Ray Pributsky, Jordin Lim, Milan Riley, Sophia Mdinaratze, and Anaelle Tadros, won two of their three matches and placed among the top four teams, advancing to the semi-finals. Ethics Club member Ryan Stein attended the competition as well, kindly volunteering alongside participants from other schools to join a team that was missing members. His team also performed well, similarly winning two of their three rounds. The preliminary portion of the competition consisted of three rounds, with each round having two cases presented. When presenting, the teams must make their claims extremely clear to the opposing side and three judges. The scoring criteria is based on the argument structure and a team’s manners of interacting and engaging with one another.
To prepare for the competition, our Ethics Bowl team meets up once every other week—as well as during Zoom meetings outside of school—to discuss these cases, with everyone contributing their personal opinions. Using the guiding questions provided in the cases, we had thorough conversations in which team members support our stances while acknowledging counterarguments. Before the competition, our team reviewed all the cases and rules in addition to revisiting the commentary from the previous year’s judges. Though there were cases our team was more passionate and confident in than others, we prepared for every possible case.
The ideas presented in these cases vary greatly, from moral conflicts you may face in everyday situations, to more complex dilemmas that reshape the ethical framework. Two cases we discussed in our sessions, as well as in the competition itself, were A Killer Dilemma and Parents Out of Bounds. A Killer Dilemma is about an individual named Shirley, who accidentally killed her sister three decades ago and has since turned her life around. While she feels guilty about the incident, she doesn’t believe it’s necessary to atone for her actions by serving time in jail. She feels that her guilt isn’t ethically justified but is unwilling to let it go. This case explores the question of whether she should turn herself in and what the consequences might be if the truth about her sister’s death were to be revealed. Parents Out of Bounds raises the question of whether parents should have the right to enroll their children in highly competitive sports at very young ages, where the child cannot make the decision. Some argue that participating in competitive sports can foster valuable traits, such as hard work and teamwork, and possibly open up opportunities like scholarships and larger competitions. Others believe that subjecting children to intense sports could lead to injuries and negatively impact their mental health. Questions like “How far should parents push their children into pursuing a sport?” and “When should parents make decisions for their children, even against their will?” are brought up and discussed in this case.
On the day of the competition, all of our members were a little nervous, especially those participating for the first time. As we progressed through the three rounds, we had deep discussions with the opposing teams and judges, along with valuable critiques from our supporting parents and our sponsor Ms. Tanguay. Ms. Tanguay greatly helped us prepare by providing feedback on our presentations and was overall an incredible help to the team. The parents present were also encouraging and cheered us on throughout the entire day. We won our first two rounds and lost the third, but still managed to make it to the semi-finals, where we had a much larger audience and tougher competition. Unfortunately, we lost the semi-finals round, but we had made it farther in the competition than ever before and remain proud of our accomplishments.
How Does an Ethics Bowl Round Work?
One Ethics Bowl round has two parts, each of which have six segments. To begin, teams are assigned to be Team A or Team B. During the first part, it is Team A’s turn to be given a case from the case set. They have two minutes to discuss, followed by a six minute presentation period. Team B has two minutes to formulate questions on Team A’s presentation before being given three minutes to respond with commentary. Team A then has three minutes to answer Team B’s questions. Finally, judges have ten minutes to question Team A on their presentation and responses. During the second part of the round, Team B is presented with a different case, which follows the same format.
Parts of an Ethics Bowl match, from the NHSEB website
Following the competition, teams are sent a spreadsheet containing feedback and notes from the judges of each round. There are seven main categories they score on:
Clear and systematic: In this category, judges are looking to see if the teams are able to come up with a comprehensible argument that builds off the case in a logical manner. The team must ensure that they do not contradict themselves or forget to mention important moral aspects of the case.
Key moral issues: Here, judges are looking for teams to point out the main moral issue presented in the case.
Opposing viewpoints: Especially in Ethics Bowl, it is crucial a team considers all sides of a moral dilemma, since there is not necessarily a right or wrong in the case. Being able to do so shows a team’s knowledge on the subject and their consideration of the topic from multiple angles.
Response to other team’s comments: To the judges, it is important in a team’s response to the other team’s comments that they clearly answer each question without dancing around the topic.
Commentary on another team’s presentation: The ability to ask insightful questions that prompt further discussion shows the judges that a team is able to think more critically and deeper than just the surface-level.
Response to judge’s questions: The judges can ask very challenging questions and if a team is able to address them, it reveals the solidity of the team’s argument.
Respectful dialogue: The team is expected to not discuss amongst themselves while the other team is preparing or presenting for their argument.
Where Can I Engage In Ethical Discussions?
If this interests you, the Ethics Club will welcome you enthusiastically and help you have engaging discussions with your peers about moral dilemmas. We meet every other Monday in Ms. Fontilea’s room, N306. We hope to see you there!
