|
DATE: November 22, 2014
Villanova Uiversity |
update for 2014-15 |
|
|
Well done, Bioethics!
With a total of 401 points (six points away from qualifying for finals, including one hair-splitting decision, resulting in a loss to Camden Catholic by 2 points, you placed 5th overall out of the teams participating. (My personal favorite was giving the Radnor team a real scare, and the look on the judge's face when he asked how many students at our school vs. theirs!)
On a more reflective note, however, the event was a big success, accomplishing the goal set for the day, which was, as our host, Mark Dorley, said, "to engage in thoughtful conversation about moral and ethical issues, exploring the moral dimensions, possibly respectfully disagreeing, but also possibly agreeing, having arrived at that place by different paths." You certainly accomplished this!
Congratulations to the competing team: Maggie Snyder, Dunia Tonob, Meera Kohli and Luyolo Matyumza. AND...sincere thank yous to those other members that helped prepare the cases - Catherine Curran and Leah O'Brien, as well as the help of coach Amanda Smaniotto.
All welcome to continue Day 7 meeting/discussions. We'll start with some slightly less serious cases and discuss the interest in a scrimmage with Padua and Tower Hill.
On a more reflective note, however, the event was a big success, accomplishing the goal set for the day, which was, as our host, Mark Dorley, said, "to engage in thoughtful conversation about moral and ethical issues, exploring the moral dimensions, possibly respectfully disagreeing, but also possibly agreeing, having arrived at that place by different paths." You certainly accomplished this!
Congratulations to the competing team: Maggie Snyder, Dunia Tonob, Meera Kohli and Luyolo Matyumza. AND...sincere thank yous to those other members that helped prepare the cases - Catherine Curran and Leah O'Brien, as well as the help of coach Amanda Smaniotto.
All welcome to continue Day 7 meeting/discussions. We'll start with some slightly less serious cases and discuss the interest in a scrimmage with Padua and Tower Hill.
Overview of the competitionmakes a nice one page handout, which will be available as hard copy in Room 213. take one for a friend and ask them to join us!
size of the team - max FIVE. we can substitute in between rounds, but everyone has to be ready to do any case. |
link to pamphlet version
|
Complete Cases (1-15)
use these for preparation and practice for the bowl
to summarize the task:
1. read your case carefully. these are found in the above "Complete Cases" document. we are preparing all of the cases, but you will notice they are not as deep as we saw with the Moorestown cases. those with green numbers are not started...
#1 Red Cross and the Taliban Dunia - in progress
#2 Facebook in Hiring Maggie? - copied case only
#3 Enhancing Academic Performance via Prescription Medications, Catherine - complete
#4 "Charlie Hustle" in progress (by Dunia?)
#5 Title IX and Female Athletes Leah - complete
#6 SAT Debate Catherine -complete
#7 Academic Integrity Meera
#8 Texas History Textbooks almost done (thanks to?)
#9 Jail Strip Search Dunia/Ali
#10 Confidentiality in Juvenile Cases Leah - complete
#11 Racial Justice Act Leah - complete
#12 Polar Bears Lu
#13 Off-Shore Drilling Meera
#14 Lifesavers Lu
#15 Health and Human Services Mandate complete (thanks Leah?)
2. look over Catherine's guide from last year. she has a good sample case filled in.
3. fill in the google doc, link at http://tinyurl.com/wfsbe2012. scroll down to find the case with your name on it. feel free to add space, use color, whatever.
IMPORTANT:
4. this year we are aware of the value of doing some background research on the issue. be sure to take this into consideration as you respond to the parts of the table.
5. stay in touch with this document, look over each other's work and comment (in a kind but serious way!)
GO WFS BIOETHICS!
1. read your case carefully. these are found in the above "Complete Cases" document. we are preparing all of the cases, but you will notice they are not as deep as we saw with the Moorestown cases. those with green numbers are not started...
#1 Red Cross and the Taliban Dunia - in progress
#2 Facebook in Hiring Maggie? - copied case only
#3 Enhancing Academic Performance via Prescription Medications, Catherine - complete
#4 "Charlie Hustle" in progress (by Dunia?)
#5 Title IX and Female Athletes Leah - complete
#6 SAT Debate Catherine -complete
#7 Academic Integrity Meera
#8 Texas History Textbooks almost done (thanks to?)
#9 Jail Strip Search Dunia/Ali
#10 Confidentiality in Juvenile Cases Leah - complete
#11 Racial Justice Act Leah - complete
#12 Polar Bears Lu
#13 Off-Shore Drilling Meera
#14 Lifesavers Lu
#15 Health and Human Services Mandate complete (thanks Leah?)
2. look over Catherine's guide from last year. she has a good sample case filled in.
3. fill in the google doc, link at http://tinyurl.com/wfsbe2012. scroll down to find the case with your name on it. feel free to add space, use color, whatever.
IMPORTANT:
4. this year we are aware of the value of doing some background research on the issue. be sure to take this into consideration as you respond to the parts of the table.
5. stay in touch with this document, look over each other's work and comment (in a kind but serious way!)
GO WFS BIOETHICS!
Links to last minute details...Villanova meet
Suggestions from Mr Ergueta
Javier was kind enough to stop by and visit Tuesday afternoon before MOAS took off to Washington DC. (Good luck to them!!) Here are a few notes from the session.
He was very impressed with the design and mission of the program, especially that the objective is about fostering deep discussions, not just oppositional debates. We reviewed the following from the above pamphlet - the different roles played by teams when they are in the presenting vs. responding positions. Keep in mind that you do not have to take the opposite position, especially if the presenting team has given a weak argument for "their side." In that case, it might be much more comfortable and impressive to agree and then proceed to give stronger evidence.
Team responsibilities during the Initial Presentation
Create a strong opening statement [We, school name, hold that . . . ]. Identify the relevant facts [circumstances, laws], the key ethical issues, and the stakeholders involved. Explain clearly the top reasons why the team has drawn this conclusion. Then, convincingly show how this solution offers value and benefit. Show thoughtful consideration of viewpoints of those who may disagree. Offer provisions that address conflicts or holes. Close with a persuasive statement similar to the opening statement
Team responsibilities during the Commentary
Pose insightful questions to the opposing team. Good questions develop counter arguments. Why didn’t you discuss . . .? We wonder what you think about . . .?
Team responsibilities during the Response/Rebuttal
Respond directly to the other team’s comments. “You said this. Here is what we think.” End with a persuasive closing statement.
Javier suggested that in any of these sort of discussion/competitions, it is useful to have an all-purpose framework, a sort of north/south/east/west network that you can apply to a variety of cases. These help see both sides of the story. Here are some examples of such frameworks:
1. Tension between responsibilities of the system and justice to the individual
2. Intention vs. consequence - very familiar to personal conflicts!
3. Rights vs. duty
4. Virtues and character traits - the morality of a particular action vs morality at the level of a person's character (we discussed how this could be a case of single actions vs. a pattern of behavior, the latter of which amounts to a character trait.
5. Consider what a particular person deserves.
Finally, we discussed the importance of keeping a calm tome of voice and phrasing our points in terms of acknowledging respect to the other team's previous points. "We hear your argument, but would add..." or "The point you make is interesting, but it raises certain questions..."
He was very impressed with the design and mission of the program, especially that the objective is about fostering deep discussions, not just oppositional debates. We reviewed the following from the above pamphlet - the different roles played by teams when they are in the presenting vs. responding positions. Keep in mind that you do not have to take the opposite position, especially if the presenting team has given a weak argument for "their side." In that case, it might be much more comfortable and impressive to agree and then proceed to give stronger evidence.
Team responsibilities during the Initial Presentation
Create a strong opening statement [We, school name, hold that . . . ]. Identify the relevant facts [circumstances, laws], the key ethical issues, and the stakeholders involved. Explain clearly the top reasons why the team has drawn this conclusion. Then, convincingly show how this solution offers value and benefit. Show thoughtful consideration of viewpoints of those who may disagree. Offer provisions that address conflicts or holes. Close with a persuasive statement similar to the opening statement
Team responsibilities during the Commentary
Pose insightful questions to the opposing team. Good questions develop counter arguments. Why didn’t you discuss . . .? We wonder what you think about . . .?
Team responsibilities during the Response/Rebuttal
Respond directly to the other team’s comments. “You said this. Here is what we think.” End with a persuasive closing statement.
Javier suggested that in any of these sort of discussion/competitions, it is useful to have an all-purpose framework, a sort of north/south/east/west network that you can apply to a variety of cases. These help see both sides of the story. Here are some examples of such frameworks:
1. Tension between responsibilities of the system and justice to the individual
2. Intention vs. consequence - very familiar to personal conflicts!
3. Rights vs. duty
4. Virtues and character traits - the morality of a particular action vs morality at the level of a person's character (we discussed how this could be a case of single actions vs. a pattern of behavior, the latter of which amounts to a character trait.
5. Consider what a particular person deserves.
Finally, we discussed the importance of keeping a calm tome of voice and phrasing our points in terms of acknowledging respect to the other team's previous points. "We hear your argument, but would add..." or "The point you make is interesting, but it raises certain questions..."
Videos to watch to learn about ethics and how the competition works:
this is the one to watch - detailed discussion of three cases
|
this is the coaches meeting - not so focused but lots of info!
|
Judges' score sheet for Villanova
2013 National High School Ethics Bowl
PRESENTING TEAM: __________________________ JUDGE:____________________________
Part 1: PRESENTING Team’s initial presentation (7 minutes; 30 total points)
1. Was the presentation clear and systematic? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, did the team give a coherent argument in a clear and succinct manner?
1-2 = Incoherent presentation
3-4 = Serious logical problems in the argument (poor)
5-6 = Hard to follow the argument (passable)
7-8 = Reasonably clear and systematic
9 = Crystal clear presentation
10 = Exceptional
2. Did the team’s presentation clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central moral dimensions of the case while avoiding irrelevancies?
1-2 = Failure to cover any relevant moral dimensions
3-4 = Serious missing or underdeveloped dimensions (poor)
5-6 = Some significant dimensions are missing or poorly covered (passable)
7-8 = Most dimensions are present and well developed
9 = All dimensions present and clarified appropriately
10 = Exceptional
3. Did the team’s presentation indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of individuals who disagree with team’s position?
1-2 = Minimal awareness of different viewpoints
3-4 = Minimal consideration of different viewpoints.... (poor)
5-6 = Underdeveloped discussion of different viewpoints.... (passable)
7-8 = Solid analysis and discussion of different viewpoints, including careful attention especially to those that would loom large....
9 = Insightful analysis and discussion of different viewpoints, including full and careful attention especially to those that would loom large....
10 = Exceptional
Total from front (maximum 30)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 2: RESPONDING Team’s Commentary (3 minutes; 5 total points)
To what extent has the team effectively dealt with the presenting team's arguments?
1 = Failure to respond
2 = Weak or irrelevant response (poor)
3 = Some points are made (passable)
4 = Solid response
5 = Exceptionally composed commentary
(RESPONDING Team added to other score sheet)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 3: PRESENTING Team’s Response to Commentary and Questions (3 minutes; 5 points)
How did the team respond to the opposing team’s commentary?
1 = Failure to respond
2 = Weak or irrelevant response (poor)
3 = Some points are made (passable)
4 = Solid response
5 = Exceptionally composed commentary
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 4: PRESENTING Team’s Response to Judges’ Questions (10 minutes; 20 points)
How did the team respond to the judges’ questions?
1-4 = Failure to respond
5-8 = Weak or irrelevant response (poor)
9-12 = Some points are made
13-16 = Solid response
17-20 = Exceptionally composed commentary
Total from Response Commentary Response to Front to Commentary on other team Judges’ Questions
[from other score sheet]
Total
Score (maximum 60)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENTING TEAM: __________________________ JUDGE:____________________________
Part 1: PRESENTING Team’s initial presentation (7 minutes; 30 total points)
1. Was the presentation clear and systematic? Regardless of whether or not you agree with the conclusion, did the team give a coherent argument in a clear and succinct manner?
1-2 = Incoherent presentation
3-4 = Serious logical problems in the argument (poor)
5-6 = Hard to follow the argument (passable)
7-8 = Reasonably clear and systematic
9 = Crystal clear presentation
10 = Exceptional
2. Did the team’s presentation clearly identify and thoroughly discuss the central moral dimensions of the case while avoiding irrelevancies?
1-2 = Failure to cover any relevant moral dimensions
3-4 = Serious missing or underdeveloped dimensions (poor)
5-6 = Some significant dimensions are missing or poorly covered (passable)
7-8 = Most dimensions are present and well developed
9 = All dimensions present and clarified appropriately
10 = Exceptional
3. Did the team’s presentation indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including especially those that would loom large in the reasoning of individuals who disagree with team’s position?
1-2 = Minimal awareness of different viewpoints
3-4 = Minimal consideration of different viewpoints.... (poor)
5-6 = Underdeveloped discussion of different viewpoints.... (passable)
7-8 = Solid analysis and discussion of different viewpoints, including careful attention especially to those that would loom large....
9 = Insightful analysis and discussion of different viewpoints, including full and careful attention especially to those that would loom large....
10 = Exceptional
Total from front (maximum 30)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 2: RESPONDING Team’s Commentary (3 minutes; 5 total points)
To what extent has the team effectively dealt with the presenting team's arguments?
1 = Failure to respond
2 = Weak or irrelevant response (poor)
3 = Some points are made (passable)
4 = Solid response
5 = Exceptionally composed commentary
(RESPONDING Team added to other score sheet)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 3: PRESENTING Team’s Response to Commentary and Questions (3 minutes; 5 points)
How did the team respond to the opposing team’s commentary?
1 = Failure to respond
2 = Weak or irrelevant response (poor)
3 = Some points are made (passable)
4 = Solid response
5 = Exceptionally composed commentary
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 4: PRESENTING Team’s Response to Judges’ Questions (10 minutes; 20 points)
How did the team respond to the judges’ questions?
1-4 = Failure to respond
5-8 = Weak or irrelevant response (poor)
9-12 = Some points are made
13-16 = Solid response
17-20 = Exceptionally composed commentary
Total from Response Commentary Response to Front to Commentary on other team Judges’ Questions
[from other score sheet]
Total
Score (maximum 60)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
