EthicsBowl.org

August 31, 2022August 30, 2022

“The Best?” – My Experience with Traditional Debate

The following is the first article in a limited series by Houston Middle School Ethics Bowl founder and coach Deric Barber.

A few years ago, I went searching for a quality extracurricular academic activity for my middle school students. Debate seemed promising. After all, debate gets students to think about other perspectives. So I decided to observe one with a parent who was a volunteer judge.

When I told the folks at check-in I was there to observe, they invited me to judge. I told them I didn’t feel qualified, having never even attended a debate, let alone properly trained to judge. Their reply: “It’s easy. Just pick the team you think is best.”

Before I knew it, I was judging. I quickly realized that the students had prepared long and hard, which sent me scrambling to keep track of their complicated arguments. I’m sure they assumed I deserved to select a winner. But despite my appearance, little did they know I was thinking, “What a shame for these students to have some walk-in amateur choose which they consider ‘the best.'”

Well, I picked “the best” team and moved on to the second round. It was this round that ripped my heart out. One team was quick, poised, and ready to attack, while the other was younger and less confident. When the cross-fire portion of the round began, the older team grabbed the floor and started hurling accusations, taking phrases out of context, twisting what the other team had said to create something they had not, declaring how stupid the other team’s position was – the classic Straw Man fallacy.

The younger team wasn’t ready for this tactic. Anytime they tried to explain that the other teams’ (mis)interpretation was not what they had said, the aggressive team would grab the floor again with more ammunition, throwing the younger team into confusion. The younger team continued to fall into this trap. And when they’d try to clarify their view, the aggressive team would talk over them and refuse to stop, with both talking so loudly I couldn’t keep up with either.

Eventually a member of the younger team, having been bullied so aggressively and persistently, began to cry. What’s worse is that the bullying team went on to win the tournament! The bullies were distinguished as “the best” for the debate.

I came away thinking, “Is this what we’re teaching our children? That discussion is about talking over and past one another rather than listening? About “winning” even if it leaves the other side hurt and crying? About blindly convincing others to our side rather than working together to find the best solution? Even when we know our views are unexamined or even plain wrong?”

What I came to realize is that debate aims at persuasion by any means necessary, usually of uncritical thinkers. Americans too often think this is the best way to unpack issues. I agree, debate does help a student take that crucial first step and consider another view than one’s own, namely “the affirmative” or “the negative.” However does that one step in the right direction get us to “the best.” What if the answer lies outside of a given proposition altogether?

The people involved in debate, most of them loving parents and generous volunteers, no doubt are helping. They’re helping participants build speaking confidence and giving them a forum to practice one form of communication. They’re helping kids learn about important issues and setting the expectation that they’ll be engaged citizens.

But from my brief experience, traditional debate doesn’t get us all the way to “the best.” I am concerned that many of our brightest, creative, young minds are being limited to a winner/loser, I’m right/You’re wrong thinking that is divisive and falls short of “the best” for our nation and world. If only there were a better alternative, I suspect many of these well-intentioned parents and volunteers would adopt it.

Following the debate, I continued my search. It just so happened that Houston was holding its first High School Ethics Bowl.

To be continued…

August 24, 2022August 9, 2022

Can Competition Actually Improve Cooperation?

Philosothon has much in common with Ethics Bowl. Both require civility and critical thinking. Both balance healthy competition with enlightened cooperation. And both feature exceptionally good-looking judges.

Alan Tapper and Matthew Wills recently wrote an article on just how good-looking these philosopher-judges are, especially when that Deaton fellow is involved. Kidding! It’s on the question of whether the cooperative nature of Philosothon can survive in light of its competitive elements, a topic relevant to Ethics Bowl for sure.

One argument Tapper and Wills consider is that since demonstrating cooperation is required to win, a team’s competitive spirit can (oddly) incentivize cooperation. Aggressive, obstinate teams who attack their opponents and interpret their arguments in the worst possible light may do well at a traditional debate. But not at a Philosothon, and not at an Ethics Bowl. Therefore, the competitive will to win can actually inspire cooperation, at least when judges are directed to assign points accordingly.

However, this raises the question as to whether an impure motive dilutes the laudability of an action. Surely a team with civility embedded in its culture, demonstrating respectful dialogue because it’s internalized in team members’ character, is more deserving to win than a group of fakers. All else equal, I, like you, want sincerely civil teams to win and superficially civil teams to lose. But this is almost impossible to guarantee. Could skilled debaters study our norms, rehearse, put on a show for the judges and win, only to revert to their true disrespectful selves in the hallway? Of course. However, if the result is heightened civility, we probably shouldn’t complain. A sincerely civil team is likely to be wise, patient and understanding, and able to take such a loss with grace. For the sneaky team, the more they practice pretend civility, the more likely it will eventually become sincere. And what better way to encourage teams of all sorts to participate and enjoy the mutual-benefits of both Philosothons and Ethics Bowls than to lure them in with exceptionally good-looking judges.

August 19, 2022August 26, 2022

The Best Public Speaking Book Full Audiobook Now Free

One advantage of Ethics Bowl over traditional debate is that students aren’t forced to speak. This allows team members who would prefer to contribute during preparation, conferral periods and between rounds to do so without pressure or shame. In fact, it’s conceivable that a team captain could focus on research, argument construction and strategy, and leave every bit of bowl day verbal delivery to others.

However, Ethics Bowl is certainly a supportive environment to improve speaking skill and confidence. Plus, so many doors open when you’re comfortable in front of a crowd. If there’s anyone we want prepared to vocalize their views, its Ethics Bowl alum.

If you’re a coach (or competitor, or organizer who supports coaches), I’ve convinced you, and an accessible how-to would help, my humbly-titled public speaking book audiobook is now free on YouTube. It’s mainly for college students and young professionals. But I think many high schoolers would like it as well. If you try it, let me know!

Coaches, the only section you might screen is the “Urban Honey Badger” assertiveness exercise in Chapter 6: Conquering Nervousness. It’s borrowed from the world of self-defense and is a tad intense. However, that’s an Urban Honey Badger right there on the cover in a Socrates pose, so it can’t be that bad. Check it out and judge for yourself. Enjoy!

P.S. If you’d rather read than listen, it’s of course available at Amazon, but just shoot me an email and I’ll gladly share the full PDF.

Chapter Direct Hyperlinks

Chapter 1: Swimmers Must Swim 01:47
Part I: The Three Commandments of Public Speaking 19:23
Chapter 2: Commandments Preview 19:29
Chapter 3: Commandment I: Know Thy Material 25:34
Chapter 4: Commandment II: Be Thyself 01:06:04
Chapter 5: Commandment III: Practice 01:16:56
Part II: Developing Stage Presence 01:29:07
Chapter 6: Conquering Nervousness 01:29:12
Chapter 7: Involving Your Audience 02:05:28
Chapter 8: Handling a Tough Crowd 02:16:48
Part III: Mastering The Mechanics 02:31:09
Chapter 9: Physical Delivery 02:31:14
Chapter 10: Oral Delivery 02:45:28
Chapter 11: If You Must Use a Script… 02:59:46
Chapter 12: Using Technology 03:06:07
Part IV: Always Improving 03:26:04
Chapter 13: Less Reading, More Speaking 03:26:08
Chapter 14: The Commitment to Get Better 03:47:58
Chapter 15: Mindset Revisited 03:57:06
Chapter 16: Paid to Speak? 04:13:27
Chapter 17: Tell Them What You’ve Told Them 04:29:14
More Books by Matt Deaton 04:43:07

August 17, 2022August 9, 2022

Inaugural University Ethics Olympiad

Ethics Bowl began in the U.S. on the college level, first in Bob Ladenson’s classroom, then at APPE sessions under the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl. Several years later, folks like Fred Guy in Baltimore, Roberta Israeloff on Long Island and George Sherman in St. Petersburg found success extending them into high schools. And slowly, innovators like Deric Barber in Houston tried Ethics Bowl in middle schools as well.

In Australia, the high school version came first, followed by middle and elementary school. And this fall, our friends down under are holding their first collegiate-level Ethics Olympiad.

Gold, silver and bronze awards will be determined by three Zoom-based heats on October 4^th. Each team needs a coach, up to two teams are allowed per institution, members may be undergraduate or grad students and must be enrolled in “a tertiary institution in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore or Hong Kong.”

Kudos, Matthew and team! I understand that several schools in India participated in a recent high school Ethics Olympiad. Awesome that you’re not only expanding geographically, but across age groups as well.

For more information click here or email admin [at] ethicsolympiad [dot] org.

August 12, 2022August 9, 2022

How Factual Assumptions Drive Moral Disagreement and What Ethics Bowlers Can Do about It – an Interview with Justin McBrayer

Progress on Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! continues, and one submission I found especially insightful was from Fort Lewis philosophy professor and author of Beyond Fake News: Finding the Truth in a World of Misinformation, Justin McBrayer. Justin explains how disagreement over basic facts can drive substantial moral disagreement, even among people with shared values, something Ethics Bowlers often neglect. He graciously agreed to an email interview – enjoy!

Matt: Justin, I’d like to begin by quoting you. “Even if two people share all and only the same ethical values, they might come to radically different decisions about how to behave and what is right and wrong. That’s because they might be starting from different viewpoints about what is true or how the world is. So just as we need Ethics Bowl to help people think through their value commitments, we need a focus on applied epistemology so that people can think clearly about what the world is like.” Your point here is clear, but can you give an example?

Justin: Yes, and I think this sort of disagreement is becoming more and more common. For example, in the aftermath of the Roe decision, I notice that lots of people disagree about whether an Unborn Developing Human can feel pain, whether they have futures, whether they are conscious of particular things, etc. Those are all non-value issues. Sometimes when people change their minds about these non-value facts, they change their positions on moral issues. For example, if you come to believe that a UDH can experience fear and feel pain after 26 weeks, you might change your stance on when abortion is morally permissible.

Matt: That’s an excellent point, and probably explains why so many are baffled by others’ inability to appreciate moral truths obvious to them. Two people could be equally compassionate. It’s just that they hold different assumptions about an Unborn Developing Human’s ability to experience pain, whether it constitutes an entity with a future like ours, when its nervous system is developed enough to have thoughts, etc. The same could be true for differing assumptions about how burdensome pregnancy can be, what degree of choice women exercise when voluntarily engaging in sex, etc.

I’m wondering if anything can be said for how Ethics Bowl might ameliorate, exacerbate or otherwise address this. Is there anything coaches or rules committees or judges can do to help participants better recognize when differing assumptions are driving people with similar values to opposing conclusions? I would think that Ethics Bowl minimizes the impact of factual differences by stipulating facts right there in the case. Teams are allowed to do outside research. But it’s not expected or usually rewarded. Still, I can imagine teams disagreeing starkly over outcomes – whether a policy would make the world safer, contribute to climate change, discourage law-breaking, etc.

Justin: I agree with the first point: if we stipulate certain non-value facts at the outset, that will focus the attention on the values in play. But from my limited experience, Ethics Bowl cases don’t do a good job of this. They need to explicitly say things like (a) assume that 10,000 people will be harmed by this product each year or (b) the company’s decision will produce X amount of greenhouse gas or (c) the consumer is aware of the fact that the product is nutritionally useless. If we make it really obvious that teams can’t challenge those opening assumptions, the dialectic will be directed towards the value propositions that animate various applied ethical dilemmas.

Matt: You’re right. Cases do often leave a great deal open for teams to interpret. And when their factual assumptions diverge, so too will their moral conclusions. The interaction helps. But with so little time within a round, we can only expect so much. Maybe this is something we should coach teams to probe during their commentary? “Team A, your analysis seems to assume X. However, we actually thought Y was more likely. Would you agree that if Y were more likely, you’d actually endorse a different position?” Something like that might help participants better empathize, understand, appreciate and engage during prep, bowl day and beyond. And maybe that’s an early step in working together to identify more or less credible claims?

Justin: Right, so insofar as a case does NOT stipulate a certain non-value fact, we should encourage teams and judges (a) to recognize the non-value assumptions each side makes, (b) offer challenges to those assumptions and (c) offer objections that ask the other side how their conclusion would change if the non-value facts were altered in such-and-such a way. While we don’t want to go too far down the road of having teams try to evaluate and determine non-value facts (e.g. is pollution the main driver of climate change?), we DO want them to see that applied ethical conclusions typically rely on a non-value premise in the argument. Change that premise, and you’ll change what follows from your moral principle.

Matt: Agreed that we don’t want to turn Ethics Bowl into Research Bowl. But also agreed that all involved should appreciate how easily like-minded, reasonable people can arrive at very different conclusions – just takes disagreement over one key fact. And simply illuminating and making that disagreement explicit would advance the discussion. Thank you for making this even clearer than you already did, and for the encouragement to our coaches, teams and judges to listen carefully for differing assumptions. If nothing else, go ahead and stipulate facts and go from there. “If, for the sake of argument, we assume that a UDH after 26 weeks can feel pain…”

Justin: If you want an additional example besides abortion, climate change, vaccines, or just about any other polarized issue works. If you assume the vaccine is effective, then such-and-such follows. If you assume it’s not, then… Again, a difference of belief about non-values often lies behind what seems like intractable moral debate. And I agree with you that we don’t want to make it a research bowl. But we can do a better job of being cognizant about how our non-value assumptions often drive our value conclusions. Keep up the good work on the book!

August 10, 2022August 9, 2022

Will Survey for Pizza

Does ethically dubious pizza taste better?

We’ve witnessed the benefits of Ethics Bowl in others. We’ve experienced them firsthand. But anecdote is no substitute for cold, hard data, especially in the eyes of school administrators, budget officers and grant committees.

Few (if any) large-scale Ethics Bowl studies exist. But our friends at UNC’s Parr Center are fixing that, and they’re maximizing participation with the promise of guaranteed pizza!

If you’re a high school Ethics Bowl coach or participant, take one 10-minute survey next month, then another in February. You don’t even have to be on an Ethics Bowl team. You just have to be a student at a school that participates. That’s it. 20 minutes of painless surveying, and unless I’m mistaken, there’s no requirement that the pizza be healthy, organic, or locally-sourced!

The full details are available here. But the upshot comes in the final paragraph.

“If you are interested in participating or would like more information, please complete this short form or send an email to Study Coordinator Michael Vazquez. We are happy to correspond via email or to arrange a Zoom meeting to discuss any aspect of your participation in further detail. It is important that we have involvement from both students involved with NHSEB and students not involved with NHSEB. So, we would greatly appreciate your help recruiting fellow educators or coaches at your school to get involved with the study. Click here to download a flier that you can share with your colleagues.”

Parr, thank you for taking the initiative, and kudos for making this easy, painless and yummy. Hopefully some portion of the results will be shared with the broader Ethics Bowl community. And on behalf of hungry teenagers everywhere, thanks for the pizza!

July 27, 2022July 27, 2022

Ethics Bowl: CrossFit for Life

“Ethics Bowl is the intellectual equivalent of a CrossFit exercise workout; that is, it strenuously tones the mind and soul together.” – Andrew Cullison, Ethics Bowl Organizer, Coach and former Competitor

While traditional workouts can make you better at specific activities (heavier bench press, faster 5k), CrossFit – a full-body workout approach combining weight and endurance training, slow and fast-twitch muscle exercise, prioritizing functional athleticism – can transform you into a true athlete.

In chapter 8 of The Ethics Bowl Way, “Beyond Argument: Learning Life Skills Through Ethics Bowl,” longtime Ethics Bowl enthusiast Andy Cullison argues that Ethics Bowl produces alum who are similarly well-rounded in ways that prepare us for a successful life.

I like it. Ethics Bowl does indeed build resilient, courageous leaders, gently cultivates public speaking skill and improves moral decision-making – benefits applicable not only to bowl day, but life.

Ethics Bowl can reveal and correct our moral blind spots, illuminating neglected interests and heightening our moral sense. As Andy points out, the explicit requirement to proactively consider thoughtful objections may be one of its most important benefits, for this teaches humility, humanizes the “other” side, and encourages reconciliation – beneficial for interpersonal relationships, business relationships and democratic citizenship. An encouraging example shared by Andy:

“One of the best Ethics Bowl teams we have seen had two cocaptains: one was a leader of the College Republicans, the other founded the College Democratic Socialist Club (because the College Democrats weren’t ‘liberal enough’). The captains became great friends. We like to think that the fact that they developed their ethical awareness together, as team members, fostered their personal friendship” (66).

When it comes to public speaking, Andy notes how our approach uniquely “scaffolds the nurturing of these skills in ways that other ‘speaking’ cocurricular activities do not” (67). He’s right. Traditional debates often expect each team member to speak as frequently (and forcefully…) as their peers. But with Ethics Bowl, less experienced members can shape their team’s position during prep and limit their bowl-day involvement to conferral periods. Case mastery is just as important as verbal eloquence, and team members who prefer to leave the speaking to others may do so without point penalty or personal shame.

But as Andy argues, Ethics Bowl also teaches resilience, a master life skill. Despite our emphasis on collaboration, Ethics Bowl remains a competition, which means far more teams go home without a trophy than with one. However, losing teams continue to return, and Andy argues that this is largely because of the undeniable intrinsic benefits combined with participants’ private confidence that they’ve grown, performed admirably and deserve to be proud regardless of how a group of fallible judges may have scored them.

“The paradox at the heart of Ethics Bowl is that most students realize that there are rewards of the event that outweigh the tangible rewards of winning. That’s why so many teams that perennially finish in the bottom half or even quarter of the rankings show up year after year. These students have learned to uncover the pleasure of engaging in activity that is hard, that challenges them, in which they are the final judges of what they’ve learned” (70).

Last, Ethics Bowl transforms and empowers participants into courageous leaders. While CrossFit can ready our bodies for physical challenges, Ethics Bowl readies us for life.

“Preparing a student for life is about preparing them to be courageous, ethical leaders. That’s why Ethics Bowl is about so much more than learning how to win arguments. Ethics bowl truly is preparation for life” (71).

Excellent argument, Andy! And wonderful book, editors and friends Roberta Israeloff and Karen Mizell. Stay tuned for more articles on The Ethics Bowl Way. And be sure to check it out at Amazon if you haven’t already.

July 15, 2022July 1, 2022

Pain Junkies Validate Utilitarianism

The History Channel’s Kings of Pain is a glorified version of MTV’s Jackass. Rather than Steve-O launching bottle rockets from untold orifices, “wildlife biologists” allow spiders to inject them with venom, hornets to sting them, and snakes to bite them, all in the name of ratings. I mean science.

However, I won’t pretend to be too good to watch something like this. I’m a Johnny Knoxville fan all the way. And since Kings of Pain is ever-so-slightly more mature, I can enjoy it with my kids with slightly less guilt. (I’ll watch Jackass with my oldest, but with considerable guilt.)

And since we’re serious moral reasoners here, I was excited to see the “wildlife biologists” scoring their encounters according to criteria that would have made Jeremy Bentham proud.

Looky there: intensity, duration. Of course, one man’s 9.25 might be another man’s 8. But by averaging and contrasting the scores inspired by tarantulas and pythons, we can quantify how much pain to assign various encounters, thereby making that Utilitarian calculus thing practical after all. Imperfect, of course. But more precise than critics give the theory credit.

Now all we need is a comparable show devoted to quantifying experiences of intense pleasure! On HBO, perhaps?

July 1, 2022July 1, 2022

Ethics in a Nutshell Full Audiobook Now on YouTube

As I mentioned in a previous post, I recently took my nephew skydiving, and in the process decided to give away my books. (Facing mortality at the speed of gravity inspires clarity!)

My philosophical ethics primer, used by college, high school and even jr. high students on at least three continents, has been available on the Resources page in PDF here at EthicsBowl.org for several years. And I released the audiobook at Audible last summer. But as of this morning, the audiobook edition is now free and available to all on good old YouTube.

Enjoy! I hope this helps students lacking the stamina or time to read (reading wasn’t my #1 hobby growing up, either), as well as educators and Ethics Bowl coaches brave enough to teach them. Re-introducing philosopher’s approach to morality, now rather than in 100 pages, 100 minutes.

Handy Timestamps (also in description at YouTube):

Ch 1: Welcome 00:24

Ch 2: Ethics, Religion & Public Discourse 09:17

Ch 3: Why Ethics Isn’t Ice Cream 14:08

Ch 4: Three Key Distinctions 22:40

Ch 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories 30:36

Ch 6: All Things Considered 59:38

Ch 7: Argument by Analogy 1:07:35

Ch 8: Intuition, Reflection & Coherence 1:17:15

Ch 9: Conclusion 1:24:14

Lecture Notes 1:28:13

More Books by Matt Deaton 1:35:19

Ethicists Cited in Supreme Court Dobbs Decision

Search the Dobbs. v. Jackson Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade for “philosopher” and you’ll find references to Australian ethicist Peter Singer, ethicist Mary Anne Warren’s “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” and the leading academic journal Philosophy & Public Affairs all supporting a section analyzing personhood.

As readers of Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell know, personhood is a moral concept capturing the capacities we associate with the most valuable creatures of all: adult humans – consciousness, the ability to feel pleasure and pain, the ability to engage in relationships, and higher order reasoning which facilitates moral agency, responsibility, and full membership in the moral community.

Unborn Developing Humans (aka fetuses, unborn children, etc.) possess none of these features of personhood at conception, but they do develop some over the course of gestation, and become more likely to develop into full persons the closer they are to birth. Accordingly, the “gradualist” position – that a UDH’s value increases as they develop, and therefore later term abortions are more difficult to justify – makes a lot of sense. (For more, listen to the “The Nature of the Conception” chapter here.)

I’ve not read the full decision yet, and so I’m not sure if the ruling acknowledges the appeal of gradualism. But I share the simple fact that they mention philosophers and ethicists by name and employ one of our key terms to help you appreciate how our work has implications at the highest levels.

Sometimes it can feel as if Ethics Bowl is an isolated game and that the world-changing action happens elsewhere. In some ways, it does. Losing Ethics Bowl team coaches aren’t jailed (thank goodness!) and Ethics Bowl judges’ proclamations aren’t legally binding (doubly thank goodness!). But the sort of analysis we refine and the progress that we drive through our collaborative pursuit of moral truth can and does find its way into the minds of decision-makers. Slowly but surely.

We won’t always agree with their decisions. And we rightly doubt their commitment to objective, truth-oriented analysis (including Jarvis-Thomson or Maggie Little in their analysis would have helped). But the broader philosophical, applied ethics and Ethics Bowl communities are leading by example, and our work is making a practical difference.

Here’s that section, in which the Justices challenge viability as a useful criterion for granting a UDH full legal protection.

“This arbitrary line [the time at which a UDH can survive outside of the womb] has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion. Some have argued that a [Unborn Developing Human] should not be entitled to legal protection until it acquires the characteristics that they regard as defining what it means to be a ‘person.’ Among the characteristics that have been offered as essential attributes of ‘personhood’ are sentience, self-awareness, the ability to reason, or some combination thereof. By this logic, it would be an open question whether even born individuals, including young children or those afflicted with certain developmental or medical conditions, merit protection as ‘persons.’ [They’re right, but biting the bullet and excluding some categories of humans from full personhood is the price we pay for being honest about the importance of personhood.] But even if one takes the view that ‘personhood’ begins when a certain attribute or combination of attributes is acquired, it is very hard to see why viability should mark the point where ‘personhood’ begins.”

Check out the full ruling yourself (it’s a landmark decision and you’re more than capable, so analyze it firsthand!), and if you’d like to author a post connecting it to Ethics Bowl, guest submissions welcome.