Category: Coaching

Posted on

2026-2027 NHSEB Regionals Case 14: Face Off Study Guide

NHSEB case 14, Face Off, is on movie studios digitizing actors’ likenesses and employing their AI “doubles,” sometimes in perpetuity, sometimes without additional compensation. For a comprehensive overview and analysis plan, check out the study guide from all-star HSEB coach Michael Andersen above.

My own team discussed the case at practice earlier today and thought the issue boiled down primarily to informed consent – that studios need to make the implications of any such agreements painfully clear, but that if actors agreed to the terms, the practice would be generally OK.

At first they thought musical artists’ work might be off limits to avoid more severely deceiving fans, since listeners might assume there’s sincere emotion behind a passionately sung performance as opposed to passionately acted performance. We know movie actors are just playing a role, but maybe singers sing from the heart? However, that difference didn’t withstand scrutiny – many singers don’t write their own music, and in any case can fake anger, heartbreak, fear, etc. in their vocal performance just as an actor might in a physical performance.

Anyway, I like to use multimedia when I can, and stumbled across the below option. It appears to be AI-generated itself – the voice is AI for sure, mispronouncing “Tom Hanks,” of all the easy-to-pronounce celebrity names. Some of the “actors’” emotions depicted seem over-the-top AI as well. But it otherwise does a nice job broaching the issue in an entertaining, concise way, it held my team’s attention, and I recommend it as a complement to the case itself and the links provided by the case writing committee in the footnotes.

Enjoy Coach Michael’s study guide, and if you find a better video option, please share it in a comment (Michael’s study guide includes one!).

Posted on

The Bowl Documentary Now Available Via PBS

PBS North Carolina recently made The Bowl, a documentary that follows a high school team as they prepare for and participate in NHSEB nationals, available to all. At 27 minutes, it’s a concise, fun, engaging Ethics Bowl promo and recruitment tool. Check it out for yourself here. Thanks to director Eli and team for making it, and to PBS North Carolina for sponsoring its public release!

Posted on

Ethics Bowl Advice from William & Mary’s IEB-Winning Captain

This past March, an especially talented team from William & Mary in Virginia won IEB nationals in St. Louis. I happened to run into their faculty sponsor, Tim Sommers (who studied under one of my philosophical heroes, John Rawls) in the parking garage afterwards, and was amazed to learn that the team didn’t have an official “coach,” only a faculty sponsor. So I reached out to team captain, Bernardo Jimenez, to get the backstory and see if he might have any advice for other teams. Bernardo was gracious enough to share the following article and pictures. Congrats to the entire W&M philosophy and Ethics Bowl program, and thanks so much for the awesome guest article!

I got into Ethics Bowl eight years ago as a high school freshman through NHSEB, where my school’s wonderful teacher, Ms. Way, had run a successful program for years. I imagined myself as fond of anything that involved philosophy back then, and in this case, I happened to be right. I had to learn some tough lessons about discipline and hard work during that time—I didn’t compete for the team until my junior year. By my senior year, though, I was one of the team’s main competitors, and we had an amazing year, placing 5th at the national competition. At that point, I had fallen in love with Ethics Bowl forever.

I got into college Ethics Bowl on the back of dissatisfaction from coming close to but not winning the national competition—I felt like I had unfinished business and could learn even more lessons from this amazing activity. The whole idea of starting a team on my own at William & Mary still might not have gotten off the ground without some great luck; somehow, I made it to the national competition competing solo my freshman year. After that, my buddy Sam came on, and we were a team of two for a while. Later, we got a faculty coach in addition to myself (Professor Tim Sommers), recruited new members, and everything of course culminated in winning of the APPE IEB this spring. Out of everything I ever did in Ethics Bowl, I have to say that learning how to coach a big team was the hardest—shoutout to all the amazing coaches who might be reading this! I don’t know how you all do it every year!

I think there are so many amazing, obvious benefits of Ethics Bowl. For many competitive young people like me, it’s a great chance to direct your energy into something that develops your reasoning and speaking skills alongside your moral compass. The main goal of Ethics Bowl is not winning, of course, but the competitive aspect draws many people in who would otherwise not engage and allows them to become far more considerate and thoughtful than they otherwise would have. For me and many others, though, I think the biggest benefit of Ethics Bowl is its ability to target “black and white” worldviews. I came into Ethics Bowl in high school thinking that I knew everything and that my views were obviously correct. If someone disagreed with me, then they were wrong. That was that. There was no middle ground or gray area. But year after year of this competition has given me an understanding of why other people think the way they do. I’ve been reminded so often that there are great arguments for and against essentially any seriousposition. I’ve learned that it’s harder to genuinelyput yourself in other people’s shoes than most people think. And in a time where having the most polarizing view is socially rewarded, striving for consensus and having a healthy uncertainty about your own views of the world is so hard. How lucky I was to have Ethics Bowl teaching me the value of those things, and guiding me towards the truth! 

If I had to give other teams advice to help them be more successful, the first thing I would say would be to not make too much out of individual wins and losses. I always caution my teammates from making too much out of one match or even one competition. In the words of NBA coach Gregg Poppovich, “When you win, you’re never as good as you thought you were, and when you lose, you’re never as bad.” Ultimately, just like any other competition, what happens in a single round of Ethics Bowl is often quite random. It’s much more productive to focus on the things you can control—after all, any 2-1 split between judges could have easily gone the other way. Even the littlest things, then, clearly do matter. A second piece of advice would be that answering the question goes beyond simply answering it at the beginning. I have noticed that a lot of teams directly answer the question they are given in their introduction and then proceed to give a presentation that answers the overall case rather than the specific question given to them. Competing teams, I think, are understandably more prepared for a general response to each case. But if you are a judge, you haven’t practiced general presentations on each case for months. The question in front of you is probably the thing that stands out most, so it’s important as a team to stick to the question that was actually asked. The last bit of advice I’d have stems from the fact that I’m a double major in economics and philosophy. My economics knowledge has come in handy to save the day so many times during rounds, especially during judges’ questions. Multi-disciplinary knowledge is so important in Ethics Bowl—especially in close rounds that end up being decided by just a point or two. That being said, I notice a lot of teams, even successful ones at nationals, struggle when asked foundational philosophical questions about the ethical concepts they use. In my humble opinion, it’s pretty hard to consistently win at nationals without having at least one or two team members well-versed in basic philosophical theory. 

As for what’s next for me, I will begin working in international tax later this summer in Miami following my graduation. My job will require lots of writing and verbal communication, skills that Ethics Bowl was incredibly important in developing for me. I’ll probably still help out my old William & Mary teammates here and there post-graduation, but if any colleges or tournament organizers in South Florida want a coach or assistant, reach out! Although my days of competing are over, I look forward to helping Ethics Bowl grow in so many other ways.

Congrats again to W&M and thanks again to Bernardo for the article! If anyone in South Florida would like to put his talents to good use, please reach out and I’d be honored to connect you.

Posted on

Free Zoom-based Ethics Bowl Workshop July 24-25

The below invitation to the Ethics Bowl community was shared by IEB chair Michael Jordan yesterday. I attended and enjoyed last summer’s workshop, and just registered to attend this summer’s late July – will be presenting that Saturday at 4:30 Eastern, in fact – hope to see you there! Matt

We’re excited to once again host the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Summer Workshop on July 24–25. This free, online event is a valuable opportunity for the Ethics Bowl community to come together, share ideas, and build connections. The workshop is designed to be welcoming and useful to both newcomers and long-time participants—whether you’re a coach, organizer, moderator, judge, or student competitor.

Sessions will cover a range of topics relevant to all aspects of the Ethics Bowl, including best practices for coaching, using the ethics bowl in the classroom, organizing a bowl, training judges, case writing, high school ethics bowl, case writing and much more. It’s also a great forum for sharing questions, challenges, and success stories from across the country.

Please share this with the teams, faculty, and volunteers in your region, including students, so that anyone interested in learning more about Ethics Bowl can take part. You can register for the workshop here. 

Posted on

Household Voting Bonus Case

This morning I came across a NYT article on “household voting” where women defer to their husbands at the ballot box. Apparently this isn’t something supporters want to limit to their individual choices, but a policy proposal to impose on broader America.

The timing of the article was nice because this afternoon I’ll be discussing the role of religious reasoning in public discussions on abortion with my Ethics students. So I fired up ChatGPT and worked with it to write the below unofficial bonus Ethics Bowl case. I’ll be covering it with my students in Tennessee this afternoon. Feel free to broach it with your teams and students and share your/their analysis in a comment. And kudos to NYT writer Vivian Yee – read her full original article here.

Posted on

IEB Case Survey for Your Classroom

I’ll use Ethics Bowl cases often in my philosophy classes to make theories or journal articles more concrete. But in the final week of my in-person Ethics Intro classes, I’ll divide the students and run a mock Ethics Bowl, inviting current and past team members to judge.

Given time constraints, we can only get through four cases. And while I could handpick topics, I’m already doing that when I set up the syllabus. So, to give my students an opportunity to tackle issues they actually want to tackle, I’ll put the most current cases up for a vote.

Below is the actual announcement I shared this morning, with my simple summaries of the 2026 IEB nationals cases. You’re welcome and encouraged to edit and use this in your classes. Even if you don’t have time for a mock Bowl, simply getting student input on what they want to discuss could lead to more smiles and more fruitful discussion. Set aside 20 minutes at the end of any class, have volunteers take turns reading a case’s paragraphs aloud, then see that they think. Or if you can spare an hour, run a full mock Bowl round. And the beauty is that with a new case set out each fall and each spring, you’ll always have fresh topics, which is true whether you’re using IEB, NHSEB, or MSEB cases. Cheers!

Vote Now for Topics for Last Two Classes

This week we’re discussing various ethical arguments on immigration. Next week we have one reading on the death penalty. Then after taking Exam 2, we’ll shift into a deep dive on abortion ethics for several weeks. But for the final two classes of the semester, we’ll discuss four Ethics Bowl cases on four topics of your choosing. 

Below are my summaries of the cases from the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl national championships competition held in St. Louis the weekend before last. Please review them now, then click here to vote anytime between now and midnight next Tuesday. 

You can read the cases’ full details here. And choose wisely, because when the final week comes, we’ll use these top four cases according to your votes to run a mock Ethics Bowl. Check out an example of how an Ethics Bowl works here. 

  • Whether it’s best to respond to injustice through inaction (Socrates), direct resistance (Bonhoeffer), or cooperation (Nazi soldiers). 
  • Whether it’s OK for individuals or companies to disperse materials into the atmosphere to fight against global warming without coordinating with governments. 
  • Whether doctors or medical school students who question the safety and efficacy of vaccines should be allowed to practice or study medicine. 
  • Whether it was OK for a federal agency to display a massive portrait of President Trump on a building facing the National Mall in DC.
  • Whether selective memory erasure (if/when it becomes possible) would be permissible.
  • What to think of reality shows that gamify and make light of sexual consent. 
  • Appropriate regulations on marijuana and extracted THC, the chemical that causes the high, with some possible medical benefits.
  • What to think of schools’ usage of software that monitors students’ online activity, alerting officials to potential suicides and other risks.
  • What to think of fan clubs celebrating Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
  • What to think of domestic violence shelters that intend to protect battered women, but also “jail” the victim rather than the perpetrator, and make economic independence difficult.
  • What to think of college student housing policies that segregate students according to sexual orientation, gender, or race.
  • Whether a musician should accept a royalty cut in exchange for her music appearing more often on users’ “personalized” playlists. 
  • What to think of a Canadian policy that allows people to receive suicide assistance when they’re experiencing unbearable mental suffering.
  • Whether it’s ethically permissible for businesspersons to engage in a certain degree of deception or “bluffing” as part of the accepted norms of how business negotiations work. 
  • Whether “ranked choice voting” where voters rank their candidate preferences is ethically better or worse than the typical “winner take all” voting.
  • Whether the environmental, water, and energy costs of Bitcoin and AI Large Language Model servers are outweighed by their benefits. 
  • Whether a hospital should have kept a pregnant woman alive on life support when she suffered blood clots and became brain dead so that her Unborn Developing Human could fully gestate and be born.
Posted on

Moral Realism in Spite of Existential Doubt

Earlier today I did a 90-minute interview with Archie Stapleton of TKEthics. We covered a lot (he’s a fantastic interviewer – reminds me of Steven Bartlet of the Diary of a CEO podcast), and spoke briefly about moral realism in light of the possible meaningless of life. I made a brief argument that even if our lives are generally pointless (mere slivers of time wedged between a vast past and future, on a tiny pebble lost somewhere in the incomparable enormity of the known universe), our lives still mean a great deal to us individually. If there’s nothing more to our lives than the little we’re able to accomplish during the waking hours of our average 85 years, then our brief existences mean everything to me, everything to you, everything to everyone – ultimately pointless or not. And given our similar circumstances and natures – the fact that we’re living similar first-person-view existences with similar needs, drives, weaknesses, etc. – it seems we should treat one another in certain ways as a matter of honoring our shared predicament, and that our common hopes, dreads, and vulnerabilities can serve as a foundation for moral standards grounded somewhere beyond our personal wants, preferences, biases, etc. – produce an objective morality not necessarily written on celestial truth tablets, but still waiting for us to work together to articulate, refine, affirm, and live by. That seems a sort of moral realism, even if it’s not as satisfying as might be credible divine commands.

I thought afterwards while jogging that a person could reasonably respond that even if our brief lives mean everything to us currently, upon realization that they’re meaningless in the grand scheme (should a person arrive at such a conclusion), we should stop taking our lives so seriously and collectively accept their pointlessness – encourage one another to let go of the hopeless striving for meaning and accept our unwelcome truth. While this might be psychologically difficult, someone could argue it would be the appropriate response nevertheless, especially for humans who pride themselves on following reason wherever it leads (perhaps lovers of wisdom like you and me!).

However, while humans are indeed rational animals, and while I do love wisdom, we’re also feeling, emotional animals. Even the most cerebral and stoic among us are sometimes sad, happy, anxious, excited, nervous, frightened, elated, etc. Our conscious experience is always laden with some sort of emotion, even if it’s simply a calm serenity. And it’s largely our feeling experience that gives us high moral value. Rationality may generate moral responsibility, but conscious feeling seems to be what generates moral status. Perhaps unfeeling machines (certain AIs one day) could be expected to accept their pointless fates, were they to conclude that their existences weren’t terribly important (inorganic consciousness may be impossible, but imagine for the sake of argument an advanced AI might achieve some degree of dim awareness, yet not be bothered because it cannot genuinely feel). But human beings can’t help but emotionally experience the world, and this not only returns us to the understandable and appropriate desire to create and find meaning in our brief lives, but to the obligation to take seriously the interests of those around us living out their own stories in different but common ways. Thus, a type of moral realism in the face of existential doubt.

Does that argument work? I think so. But perhaps I’ll change my mind as soon as I hear back from Archie, or during my next jog. Thanks for the great interview, Archie! I’ll share it here on the blog soon.

Posted on

2025-2026 NHSEB Regionals Case 6: Mission Admission

If you do something because it helps others, but also because it helps you, does that dilute the praiseworthiness of the action? In other words, are more selfless acts morally better? On the other hand, could pursuing good for others + good for you actually amplify an action’s praiseworthiness – make it a better action overall? Or would your whys have little impact on an action’s praiseworthiness? Perhaps outcomes are all that matter – intentions be darned?

Why all the questions? Because NHSEB case 6 is about 17-year-old college hopeful Erin, who founds a nonprofit to spread literacy, but also because it will look really good on her college admission applications.

There’s some intuitive appeal of Erin doing it because it will help others. But it’s hard to blame her for also wanting to improve her chances of getting into the college of her choice. All things considered, we probably wouldn’t criticize Erin for helping to cultivate her community’s love for reading. But if we had reason to think 95% of her motive was to get into Yale and only 5% was to promote literacy, we’d probably think less of her than were those %s reversed. The questions are, how much less would we think of her, why, and how should our judgments about Erin influence the motives that we ourselves suppress or nurture in our own decision-making?

As you begin to think about the specifics of Erin’s case (always read the specifics), as well as related areas good judges might ask you to tackle, consider the “Very Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Exploration” in coach Michael Andersen’s excellent study guide below, as well as the entire thing. Thanks as always for the awesome study guide, coach Michael!

Posted on

2025-2026 NHSEB Regionals Case 8 and MSEB Regionals Case 3 Fido as Feed

Case 8 in the high school set and case 3 in the middle school set (same case: “Fido as Feed”) invites teams to weigh the nourishment of zoo animals against the emotions of pet owners. Or, at least that’s one way to frame a zoo in Denmark that invited donations of “unwanted but otherwise healthy animals” to be used as food for their carnivores.

The idea is to allow the zoo animals to enjoy the whole meal – fur, organs, bones, and all – as they would in the wild. And zoo officials specified that they’re not requesting cats or dogs, which was probably a smart PR move, but rather “chickens, rabbits, or guinea pigs,” as well as horses. The Ethics Bowl case doesn’t mention horses, but that species was indeed included in the zoo’s request.

My high school team said this case made them sad. And they did indeed look and sound sad while discussing it. But it also gave them a chance to think about how we treat similar species differently. The same person who provides a cushy indoor life for their beloved cat might add bacon to their cheeseburger without a second thought. And when it comes to how that cat might be treated as it nears the end of its life, it seems a person would either have to be very callous or very enlightened to volunteer it to be ripped apart by a tiger, even with reassurances that it would be humanely euthanized first.

I sense fruitful connections to how we treat the cadavers of people who donate their bodies to science. But before making that leap, check out coach Michael’s excellent-as-always study guide below, tailored to work for either a high school or a middle school Ethics Bowl audience. Enjoy!

Posted on

Ethics Bowl Innovations – Student Judges and Reporters for In-Class Bowls Grades 4-8

The below is the second of two guest articles by Dr. Jana Mohr Lone, author of The Philosophical Child and Seen and Not Heard, as well as the brand new children’s book series What Would You Do?, and Executive Director of the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO). Click here to read her first article on direct team-to-team dialogue and “cold cases” at the middle and high school levels, and think about how you might use the below innovations to run more engaging and successful Ethics Bowls in your classroom.

Four years ago, I began running in-class ethics bowls with grades 4-8, using a very similar format. This involves several class sessions. In the first, I introduce an ethics case and work with the students to identify the ethical issues involved and discuss as a whole group, often breaking the students up into small groups and asking them to list the ethical questions they identify in the case.

The second session involves a discussion of the case that will be used for the in-class ethics bowl. I also describe the structure of the bowl and the various roles students might play (this lesson plan along with other resources for running in-class ethics bowls are available on the PLATO website).

After the second session, students give their first and second choices for the role they would like to play in the bowl, with the following options:

  1. Team member (there are two teams, each with up to 5 students)
  2. Questioning Judge (3-5 students, who will ask questions of the teams)
  3. Scoring Judge (3 or 5 students, who will score both teams)
  4. Reporter (students who do not want to play any of the other roles; this can involve art and/or writing that can be submitted to Wondering Aloud, the PLATO Blog, or to Questions, PLATO’s online journal)

At the next two sessions, I work with the two teams (seated in separate parts of the room) to help them prepare their presentations for the bowl. They can each bring one 3×5 index card with them to the bowl, but no other outside notes. I also provide an orientation for the questioning and scoring judges, emphasizing the importance of the neutrality and objectivity the role demands of them.

It’s inspiring how seriously even fourth-grade students take this activity. They work hard to think through the ethical problems involved, and they learn how to identify why someone might disagree with their approach to the case. They seem to relish the deep and open conversations that ensue. But what stands out for me most are two related observations.

First, I notice the genuine listening that the students demonstrate. They pay focused attention to other students say and respond in very specific ways to the points made by the other team. Rather than just repeating their own points, they allow other perspectives to influence their developing thinking about the case and don’t stay attached to the points of view with which they began their presentations. They exhibit flexible thinking and a willingness to change their minds, and to think out loud.

Second, and perhaps it is the deep listening on the part of the other students that fosters this, I have watched students grow more and more confident at being able to say what they think. One student said, “I learned so speak when I had something to say and not to wait.”  Another student noted, “When judges ask you a question, you have to give a strong answer, but before you say it, you have to think if it really makes sense.”

At the end of each year, when I ask my philosophy students what they will most remember about philosophy this year, the Ethics Bowl is always high on the list.