​
Ethics Bowl matches feature two teams meeting face-to-face to discuss and evaluate case studies which feature complex ethical problems. These cases come from the Regional Case Set. Each match will have three judges and one moderator. Spectators are encouraged to attend as well.
Match format and judging criteria are detailed below.

​If you would like UNR Philosophy to run a free training workshop at your school, please email Simone Gubler at simoneg@unr.edu

Individual Match Format

​In the Nevada bowl, we will observe the rules for national competition. Each match will proceed as follows...

Team Size: 3-7 Members, drawn from grades 9-12 at one school.
Each team participating in a match may be composed of up to seven members, but only up to five members may be seated for any given match. These team members must be selected and seated at the table before the match opens. Substitutions may not occur during a match. 

Assigning sides:
Each match will begin with a coin toss. The team that wins the toss may elect to present first (designated as Team A) or to have the other team present first (in this situation, the winner of the toss is then designated as Team B).

To open the first half of the match, copies of the first case and question will be distributed to the judges and teams. The moderator will then read the case number, title, and a question for competition. Neither judges nor the teams will know in advance which case will be presented or which question concerning the case will be asked by the moderator. We’ll refer to this as the Moderator’s Period.

The first half will then proceed as follows:

1. Presentation Period: After the case and question are introduced, Team A will have up to three minutes to confer, after which any member(s) of Team A may speak for up to five minutes in response to the moderator’s question, based on the team’s research and critical analysis. Team A must address the moderator’s question during the time allotted.

2. Commentary Period: Next, Team B will have up to three minutes to confer, after which any members of Team B may speak for up to three minutes to comment on Team A’s presentation.

3. Response Period: Team A will then have up to three minutes to confer, followed by three minutes to respond to Team B’s commentary.

4. Judges’ Period: The judges will then begin their ten minute question and answer session with Team A. Before asking questions, the judges may confer briefly. Each judge should have time for at least one question, and may ask more questions if time permits. Teams are allowed to briefly confer (20 to 30 seconds) before answering a judge’s question. Any team member can speak during the team’s response. Judges then evaluate the Presentation, Response, and Responses to Judges’ Questions by Team A and the Commentary by Team B, and assess the teams based on the judging guidelines found in Section IV below.

After the judges have made their scoring decisions about the first half of the match (see below for scoring criteria), the moderator will read the second case number, title, and question to the same two teams, beginning the second half of the match. The second half will proceed as above, with Team B presenting, Team A offering commentary, Team B responding, and then Team B participating in the judges’ question and answer session.
Thus, in each match, each team will have the opportunity to present one case and to respond to the other team’s presentation of another case.

Judging Criteria

Upon the conclusion of each half of the match, judges will score each team as follows:

Team’s Presentation on the Case Question (up to 15 points): 
​In evaluating a team’s answer to the question concerning the case, the judges will give the team a score of 1-5 on each of three criteria:

• Did the presentation clearly and systematically address the case question asked?
• Did the presentation identify and thoroughly discuss the central moral dimensions of the case raised by the question asked?
• Did the presentation indicate both awareness and thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including those that would loom large in the reasoning of individuals who disagree?

Opposing Team’s Commentary (up to 10 points)

• Presenting Teams’ Response to the Opposing Team’s Commentary (up to 10 points)
• Presenting Team’s Responses to Judges’ Questions (up to 20 points)
• Each team’s display of Respectful Dialogue throughout the match (up to 5 points)
  The judges do not discuss their scoring decisions with each other; each judge relies on their own private judgment.  ​

As each match concludes, moderators will help validate scores with the judges and tabulate the winner based on the scores.
The winner will be the team with the highest number of votes (out of three totals).

For example:

Judge 1: Team A 48, Team B 43 (1 vote for Team A) Judge 2: Team A 45, Team B 44 (1 vote for Team A) Judge 3: Team A 39, Team B 49 (1 vote for Team B)

Here, Team A is the winner of the match with two judges’ votes despite the fact that Team B had a higher overall point total.
If a judge scores both teams equally (a tie), both teams are awarded 1⁄2 of that judge’s vote. A match can end in a tie—if all three judges score the match a tie, or one judge votes for Team A, one for Team B, and one scores a tie. Point differential is not typically a factor in determining the winner of an individual match although it is a criterion that may be used as a metric when ranking teams with equivalent win records at the end of preliminary rounds.

The rules and regulations in full may be found in the official 2022-2023 NHSEB Rules Manual, here.