Chapel Hill, North Carolina (AP) – Contrast:
Two high school students will take the stage in the national speech and debate tournament. First, clearly express the position he was assigned to protect – people should have the right to leave their government – and that’s why. Another student assigned an opposite position begins to systematically demolish the other’s views.
A year later, two teams of high school students 800 miles away will be called up at the University of North Carolina for the National High School Ethics Bowl Final. Moderators ask about the boundaries of discourse – when public figures die, how do you rate the value and harm of critical commentary about their lives?
The team is not assigned a position. Present their ideas. The opposing team asks questions that will help everyone think more deeply about the issue. No one will attack.
Many young debates learn rhetorical skills to become a successful lawyer or politician, and hold back their enemies through wit and wordplay. But are they learning the skills to improve citizens of an increasingly complex and controversial republic?
At an age where many Americans wonder whether it’s still possible to provide principled and respect for important issues, proponents of the Ethics Bowl say it points the way.
Discussion replaces controversy
The Ethics Bowl may be a bit like argument. After all, two teams are discussing a controversial or difficult topic. But they are very different.
In Ethics Bowl, teams are not assigned a specific position on issues they must defend regardless of their beliefs. Instead, members are given cases where they discuss what they consider best to be their best and make their own decisions. The team can reach similar conclusions. That, and this is important – it’s okay for them to agree. Scoring is based on how deeply you explore the problem, including other perspectives.
Robert Ladenson, who developed the Ethics Bowl as a movement in the university’s philosophy classroom in 1993 and led the University Philosophy Ethics Bowl for decades, explains in 2023 that he considers an ethical understanding of issues in the oral history of the University of Illinois.
It means that from within you have the ability to see the ethical perspectives of people who don’t agree with you. It means that you can develop the nifty debate responses to what they said and wrote, and the perspectives they have, but also look inside other views and try to understand it from the other people’s way.
It is the scope of understanding and common ground
It will be expanded in Ethics Bowl. Take the case “See Spot Clone” about whether cloning your beloved pet is ethical.
Nashville’s Harpeth Hall begins the discussion in six minutes and presents their thoughts. With millions of homeless pets, they believe that the ethical choice is to adopt. Cloning is selfish for humans. Pets cannot agree to be cloned. Also, cloning may be unclear what health issues of cloned pets are, as in the famous case of Dolly the Sheep. The team also considers death to be a part of life, and it is important for people to stand up to death.
It is now the turn of Team B, the Archimeden upper conservatory in Miami. Rather than attacking and rebutting, it’s about asking questions that expand the debate. How about pet breeders? Where do they fit into the ethical continuum? Also, what’s so bad about cloning your pet for your own happiness? Is all selfish pursuit bad?
Team A responds that breeding is better than cloning, but worse than he is lost. They point out that cloned pets do not have the same personality and that it can cause pain to the owner rather than comfortable.
The judges then ask questions. What happens if the cloned animal does not have health issues? What if the animal is not cloned for a more noble purpose to comfort its owner? Is it ethical to clone a skilled search and rescue dog?
Cloning remains a threat to the “natural cycle of life,” Team A claims. And there is no guarantee that the temperament and personality that creates a great service animal will be retained in the clone.
Once the round is complete, the moderator will introduce you to a new case.
The simple answer is avoidable
In society, there is a lot of shortcuts and simple solutions, and simply setting basic rules for controversial conversations can be a high hill to climb. But in the Ethics Bowl, that’s part of the point. The conversation process is just as important as the outcome. And a delicate question.
The case of a good ethics bowl is “two well-intentioned individuals can take all the same facts and information and come to the exact opposite value-driven answer,” says Alex Richardson, who oversees the National Bowl for five years.
The cases students are working on include real scenarios drawn from the headlines, like the less respected response to United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder. There are also more philosophical questions, such as whether humans should pursue immortality. And there are dilemmas that teenagers deal with every day, such as whether they’re posting on Instagram about hate crimes in your community.
That last case was a difficult case for the Harpeth Hall team, but they helped clarify some of their thoughts on social media.
“We have come to the conclusion that no one has an obligation to share information,” says Katherine Thomas. “But when we were talking about Taylor Swift, there was a difference like when she actually managed to register 500,000 people, but she decided not to. Is she actually conspired with that? She actually has the power to change.
Another case considered whether to stand up to his uncle making sexist remarks at the dinner table. Discussing the issue with her Harpeth Hall teammates helped Talia Vidalakis think that it might be good to talk about and that “it’s good to be there just for your family and realize there’s a difference.”
It unfolds in a modest way
A group of teenagers sit at a table with sticker-covered water bottles and occasionally Red Bull. They are only allowed with pens and blank paper, no previous notes, but their backpacks are scattered throughout the room. Their opponents are sitting at the table next to them. In the meantime, I’m a moderator. They are even three judges drawn from the UNC Philosophy department, ethics bowl leaders from other states, and even the entire community. There is no dress code, so teens have anything to consider when it comes to great clothes.
The team has been discussing the group of cases for weeks, and we don’t know which one will be asked. Once the question is read, you will be given a few minutes to discuss. At that time, one or two teammates generally run around the table and snuggle together. It continues with intense whispers and fierce doodles.
It’s clearly a contest. There are winning teams and trophies. However, students say it is not competitive in the traditional sense.
“We’re all sad that it has to end, but I agree that it’s not about be-hitting people,” says Lizzie Lyman, who lost in the semi-finals of the national championships by Atlanta’s first-year team at Midtown High School. “When you win and win against other teams, you’re hostile and… just uncomfortable. You get all these amazing conversations by answering questions constructively and having really interesting and engaging conversations.”
Competitiveness is not just about the key. It can even be counterproductive in achieving your desired goals. That’s how May Bradford, the Flagstaff based in Arizona, is watching it. Her review: “What’s unusual and unique about the Ethics Bowl is that someone who doesn’t focus on winning, instead focusing on reaching the moral heart of truth, respect and the issue wins.”
One child at a time, changing your mind
Part of the point of the Ethics Bowl is to create a balanced student who takes other perspectives and is involved without discussion. A 2022 survey of Nationals participants found that 100% believed their critical thinking skills had improved. The majority said their ethical or political beliefs had changed.
Another type of competition is clearly thirst. The National High School Ethics Bowl is only 12 years old, and this year, 550 teams competed in regional bowls across the country.
Sona Zarkou sees herself with a case study of the benefits of the Ethics Bowl, based on the Flagstaff team. When she practiced the argument, she says she was “some kind of jerk.” In the Ethics Bowl, she sees herself.
Rhiannon Boyd, judge, high school teacher and coach at this year’s competition, has also seen positive changes. Last year, two students were on the other side of the political spectrum. Their differences were amazing. Can they be on the same team together? In the end, both took part and led to the nation.
Their different opinions remain. But now Boyd says they are “really good friends.”
“They can see each other’s strengths, because they sat side by side with the nation in huddles trying to build ideas for each other,” she says. “They could see that exploiting these differences actually made them stronger.”
Ethics Bowl: Lessons learned. ___
AP National Writer Allen G. Breed contributed to this report.
Source link
