1. Opening Analysis (6 minutes)
Presenting team explains the case, ethical tensions, and a defensible position.
Competition Design
Each match is a structured ethical dialogue. Teams present, respond, and question to deepen collective understanding.
A standard round includes four phases:
Presenting team explains the case, ethical tensions, and a defensible position.
Responding team probes assumptions, raises objections, and adds alternative perspectives.
Both teams discuss agreements, disagreements, and possible revisions to each position.
Each team states what changed, what remains contested, and why.
Keeps timing, enforces civility norms, and ensures balanced participation.
Evaluate reasoning quality, listening, responsiveness, and ethical depth.
Engage as co-inquirers: challenge sharply, respond charitably, and refine arguments in public.
| Criterion | What Judges Look For |
|---|---|
| Ethical Analysis | Identifies stakeholders, principles, tradeoffs, and consequences. |
| Quality of Reasons | Offers clear, relevant, and publicly defensible arguments. |
| Dialogue Engagement | Listens actively, answers directly, and advances discussion. |
| Intellectual Humility | Acknowledges uncertainty and revises positions when warranted. |
| Civic Discourse | Maintains respect, reciprocity, and fairness throughout. |
All teams participate in multiple scored rounds against different opponents.
Top teams advance based on cumulative rubric scores and schedule strength.
Finalists discuss a case before a judge panel and public audience.
Casebook publication and coach orientation.
School practice rounds and regional qualifiers.
Regional championships and judge calibration.
National semifinals and final showcase.
Use this structure as a baseline and adapt logistics to local language, school calendars, and regional context.
Return to Homepage