Hey, this is some work I did with my team showcasing some different philosophies and approaches that we had to responding to some hard questions begged in December of 2020 for an ethics bowl tournament. Unfortunately we were only given 24 hours to prepare for this tournament, for it was a last minute call to invite our school to this tournament... However I led my team (I was the JV coach as a sophomore at the time), and I believe that we came up with some rather solid arguments...

In our team I primarily worked on: Dining Out During a Pandemic, The Korean Pop Industrial Complex, and Dating After Prison, however I ended up having to help across the board... Here is the case set we were given: Case Set

Gale, Jordan. “Hogs Are Seen in the Cher Pork Farms Facility in Lone Rock, Iowa, U.S.” PBS, 28 Aug. 2018.

1 Factory Farming

  • Discussion Questions
    • Is it immoral to consume factory farmed animal products?
    • Is it unjust to prohibit the consumption of factory farmed animal products?
    • Do facts about the individual efficacy of our actions affect moral obligations?

  • Other Questions
    • To what degree are we complicit in the crimes of others?
    • Is farming a "moral crime" to begin with?
    • Abuse of laborers / exploitation of workers... Is the state of workers a state of coercion?
    • Is there a line to be drawn in regards to the living conditions of animals? When is a living condition for an animal unreasonable, or is there even a line to be drawn?

  • Provides a wealthy number of jobs
  • Provides a cheap alternative to more morally justifiable methods of farming... Although if our value premise is general welfare this pro could bode as a valuable asset.
  • Extremely efficient.
  • Beneficial to poorer families, as it offers seemingly cheap food... That is compared to the alternative

  • Bad quality of meat
  • Poor working conditions
  • Unreasonably poor conditions for animals
  • Negative effects on the enviroment

Our Final Team stance

We define factory farming as a form of necessary evil (Status Quo). Without factory farming most of us would not be able to afford meat. If we want to continue eating meat, factory farming is necessary. Although we believe that factory farming is a necessary evil, we understand that there are some more advantageous alternatives, such as plant based products. It would be irresponsible of us to quote on quote "cancel" or prohibit others from purchasing factory farming when such alternatives are not as widely accessable or as pronounced. We believe that overtime this necessary evil will become less necessary, and will eventually dissipate as other alternatives arise.

Cottonbro. TikTok. 30 July 2020.

2 TikTok Infamous

  • Discussion Questions
    • When, if ever, is it morally permissible for the government to have power to control the apps we use?
    • To what extent do national security considerations outweigh personal liberties?
    • Does this mean we can’t, or shouldn’t, use apps, software, or other products from countries with which conflicts might exist or arise?
    • Which value is more morally important: national security or personal liberty?

  • Other Questions
    • How important is transparency?
    • Does a social media have to abide by global laws? or only the laws of it's host country?

  • Provides a great social media
  • Caters to the individual with highly advanced algorithms

  • National Security Risk
  • Owned by American political adversary
  • Extremely effective in gathering information... Dually edged sword.

Our Final Team stance

National Security risk: TikTok poses a national security risk to the people of the United states as it regularly and willingly takes information from persons under the age of 8-9. The app’s main offensive danger is its gathering capabilities when it comes to personal information about some of the younger members of our community. “President” Xi Jinping has every right to demand that the data collected from aforementioned users be handed over to the chinese government. Seeing as the Chinese government and U.S. government have been trying to gain a hold over one another for the last 40 some odd years, giving the Chinese government access to the personal information of over 100 million American citizens poses a significant threat to the national security of this nation and its people.

Should we give up foreign products to protect National Security?: No, we should support the markets that these countries produce when the provide goods and or services that the average citizen deems necessary or wanted. To immediately shut off all trade with foriegn countries would be devastating to the opposing country, as well as to any American investors. Simply having the ability to do damage is not a reason to shut off an entire new market... If China was to enforce a will to damage America through the use of something like TikTok, only then would it be acceptable to shut down such a vast market. AKA weaponizing such a service.

Throughout this debate we are constantly going to cover the theme of China VS America, and the extreme disparity in motives...

It would be advantageous to connect TikTiok to Facebook, as they have somewhat similar capabilities... There have been reports of Facebook and TikTok being able to use a facial recognition software to not only recognize the user, but also the people in the background... It is unethical and an invasion of privacy for any social media to do something of the sorts... This kind of action is an ecroachment of privacy who have not willingly allowed this to happen, AKA for those who have not signed up. This also poses as a national security threat for high ranking government officials who wish to keep their location private...

Pixabay. Person Holding U.s. Dollar Banknotes. 23 Dec. 2016.

3 Uncharitable Donations

  • Discussion Questions
    • Where should Mary send her money? What factors should she consider before making her decision?
    • When, if ever, it is morally permissible to make charitable contributions with “strings attached”?
    • Would Mary be less responsible for donating to a harmful charity if she didn’t know about the possible harms?
    • Should people try to maximize good outcomes with their charitable donations, or does personal connection to a charitable donation matter as well?

Our Final Team stance

Individuals who wish to donate most certainly has a moral obligation to spend it wisely, and to donate in a program that has the highest effecieny in regards to effectiveness. That being said, they are by no means at fault if they are simply unaware of the ineffectiveness of one progream or another. Mary has no moral obligation to give money to either company, however she is morally obligated to not donate to Kiva, given the history of wastefullness and ineffectiveness of the program...

Prior to donating any individual should at least attempt to engage in some sort of research to know where their money is going... The individual who donates would in one way or another be complicit in the crimes or benefits of one program, and therefore must be aware of what is becoming of their donations. If she’s aware that a charity is harmful, she has a moral obligation not to donate to it.

Pixabay. Brown and Black Wooden Chairs Inside Room. 22 Oct. 2016.

4 No More Teachers, No More Books

  • Discussion Questions
    • Who should be or should have been involved in discussions about the reopening of schools? What principles should be used to make decisions?
    • What principles should be used in deciding whether to reopen schools?
    • Is there a meaningful difference between the way the decision to reopen is made by public schools as opposed to private or independent schools?

  • Other Questions
    • How do we level the importance of opinion vs effectiveness

Our Final Team stance

We really have to judge this one a case by case basis... There is no legislature that fits all schools or individuals... There are several benefits for either in class or online school. The easiest and most effective way of providing good education while maintaining a safe enviroment would be simply giving members of the school the choice as to whether or not they would like to teach/learn at school or at home... People are most effective in an enviroment in which they are comfortable...

That being said, all members of the community are still excpected to carry out any predisposed roles they had prior to Covid-19.

Nobody should be forced, as there is a significant risk of personal harm, and harm to others not immediately involved... If everyone was forced to go to school, the individuals who do not wish to be there will most likely act up, and make the school as a whole a less safe place to be...

It is also important to allow individuals to return to school for the sake of teaching members of the community who don't have access to good wifi, or to certain required online resources unlike those more fortunate than that individual.

Schools such as boarding school, and in isolated and rural communities not impacted by the pandemic may choose to resume in person learning if they can do so safely. However, they still should offer the opportunity to learn online, since there is always some risk of the virus being transmitted.

Schools should also have workers/volunteers work in the kitchen and outside and distribute the free meals that some unfortunate students may depend on.

Min, Daniel Sangjib. “Aerial Photo of the Robert E. Lee Statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond.” Richmond.com, 11 July 2020.

5 What’s In A Name?

  • Discussion Questions
    • As task forces across the country continue to deliberate about the best way forward, what principles should guide their decisions to remove names?
    • What is the moral significance of building naming and renaming? Does it matter whether the buildings are publicly or privately owned? Does it matter what sort of institution to which the name is attached?
    • Are building names analogous to public monuments and memorials? How about other ‘named’ features of the academic world, such as labs, fellowships, endowed chairs, and so on?
    • What principles should guide decisions to name buildings, labs, fellowships, endowed chairs, etc. after individuals?
    • When deciding whether to remove the name, does it matter if the building or institution has developed a legacy of its own devoid of the namesake?

  • Other Questions
    • How heavily may we judge individuals of the past with our modern standards?
    • How does the freedom of speech tie into this debate?
    • Cancel culture, the pros and cons and the progression of thought / civil discouurse

Our Final Team stance

If we judge each individual down to the minute morals then there will never be a fully satisfied community. Not to mention there is no aformentioned definition of "good" or "bad"... No private owner of a building or object is obligated to change the name of their property... That being said, it would be in their own best interest if they were to do so. If one was to match the community's interest the individual may gain a better public opinion, which is beneficial in many ways...

Any public or communal space should be controlled by the scrutiny of the community... AKA, control the name of some property by a vote.

Spiske, Markus. Coronavirus News on Screen. 13 Mar. 2020.

6 Dining Out During a Pandemic

  • Discussion Questions
    • Is it ethical to dine-in at restaurants in the midst of a pandemic such as COVID-19?
    • What responsibility do Andy and Megan have to protect the health of others, especially if those others chose to put themselves at risk?
    • How should decisions balancing the support of the economy and the protection of people's health be made during a pandemic?
    • How should decisions balancing the concern for restaurant and bar industry employment with the concern for people’s health be made during a pandemic?

  • Other Questions
    • How important is personal opinion? How should people manage values?

Our Final Team stance

It is absolutely ethical to to dine out during a pandemic... Eating out during a pandemic is the best way to support your local businesses. It helps waiters specifically, who would otherwise be unemployed due to the virus. If both the worker and the customer voluntarily serve each other, then there is no health violations being commited...
  • If it is voluntary then both sides have understood the possible dangers of the virus, and have come to the conclusion that the risk of unemployment outweighs the risk of contracting and or dying from the virus
The alternative to working would be unemployment, notoriously known for killing far more people than the virus is projected to kill. Maintaining a steady source of income is at utmost importance

What this truly comes down to is a disparity in values... Health/safety or income, neither more important or less important than the other. Individuals should have the ability to make their own decisions on how to manage their own body and life.

Megan and Andy do have a moral obligation to follow the CDC guidelines to keep themselves and others safe if they do plan on eating out.
  • Stay 6 feet apart
  • Wear a mask
  • Avoid hand-to-hand contact or contact with frequently touched surfaces
  • Keep good hygiene
In regards to the balancing to the economy and the protection of health, I would leave all choices up to an individual to manage how to maanage their values. An individual knows his or her risks and values far better than a government that lives across the country.
  • The issue with the government controlling the implementation of decisions is that they have to generalize the population and tend to the needs of the majority. Meanwhile “the left out” aren’t benefiting nearly as much, and sometimes are actually harmed. An individual can manage their needs more efficiently than anyone else can.
This comes down a lot to the views of an authoritarian vs the views of a libertarian.

“food may be unsanitary”
  • Reports say that Covid has an extremely low chance of spreading through surfaces
“personal beliefs”
  • You should do what you value most, if you would not like to go to dinner then don’t but you should by no means force your beliefs on another person.
“the virus spreads with people putting themselves unneededly at risk”
  • You have to weigh your own risks to whether or not you stay employed
  • Choice between starvation and a cough for two more weeks, not unneededly
  • The virus isn’t going to end until people get vaccinated. It’s not going to go away by itself just from people social-distancing. While it will be helpful to lower the total infection count by choosing the low-risk lifestyle, it will not impact the rate at which people get vaccinated and are able to return to their previous lifestyles without having to fear the virus.

Brooke, Ethan. Empty Lighted City Street at Night. 16 Apr. 2019.

7 The Korean Pop Industrial Complex

  • Discussion Questions
    • Do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated?
    • If people voluntarily enter contracts, does it matter that the terms of the contract are perceived as exploitative? How can we distinguish between coercion and voluntary agreement in a global entertainment industry?
    • Despite the “soft power” potential of the K-Pop industry, do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting it if they know that the performers are being exploited?

  • Other Questions
    • How important is transparency?
    • To what degree is a company at fault? Was it not the employee who signed up?

  • Definitions
    • Entertainment Industry
      • Any and all individuals aiding in then provision of general entertainment

Our Final Team stance

Listeners have no moral obligation to stop supporting the k-pop industry if they are aware that performers are being mistreated. To begin with, assuming the company is not breaking any laws the workers voluntarily signed up to work, and are therefore at fault to any injustices. AKA, any harm imposed on the individual makes the indivudual equally at fault, if the mistreatment is bad to such a point, the individual should most certainly leave the company, howver the fact that they are staying means that it is in their own best interest. If we were to say "boycott" the company, it will effect the portrayers of evil, however it is most likely to negatively effect those who are the receivers of that evil more.

If people voluntarily enter contracts... No The worker voluntarily joined the company knowing that the terms of the contract are exploitative, and it is only due to the worker’s decision that they succumb to any of the owner’s commands... Let us take a look at two companies side by side. One is known for being exploitative and one isn’t. In every instance, the workers will file inline behind the company that is not exploitative.
  • Transparency is key
  • You know what industry you are going into

Is the entertainment industry inherently exploitative?
  • No, that is a gross generalization to make of all businesses related to the work of entertainment... The definition of entertainment plays a very valuable role in my argument... A cartoon channel wouldn’t be exploitative by any means. They neither exploit the producers nor the consumers.

Cottonbro. Multi Colored Plastic Round Toy. 24 May 2020.

8 Who Gets to Be Fashionable?

  • Discussion Questions
    • Is it unethical to buy fast fashion clothing? What if those are the only brands that one can afford?
    • Does wealth allow a person to make more ethical choices than if they were poor?
    • Do corporations in the fast fashion industry have a moral obligation to make their clothing more sustainable, even if by doing so their prices will be too high for much of their market?

Our Final Team stance

Up to the worker to decide whether or not he/she will stay/leave the sweatshop that produces the fast fashion. Boycotting would hurt those who choose to stay and would be inefficient at converting workers into considering other job prospects.

If you have the means to, it is moral not to purchase fast fashion. That being said, we wouldn't advocate for something along the lines of boycotting.

Jackson, Brian A. “Upset Problem Child with Head in Hands Sitting on Staircase Concept for Bullying, Depression Stress or Frustration” HHP-Blog, 1 Dec. 2014.

9 Wholesome Discipline

  • Discussion Questions
    • Is there a morally significant difference between the use of restorative disciplinary practices on young children in schools as opposed to adult offenders?
    • What obligations do victims (whether individuals or communities) have to offenders?
    • What obligations do offenders have to their victims?
    • What should be the aim of discipline in schools and what disciplinary practice should be used to achieve that aim?

Our Final Team stance

The use of restorative disciplinary action on young children is just as desirable as the use of restorative action on adults. Restorative action on young children can be an excellent opportunity for them to learn and use empathy, while restorative action on adults is much more effective, given that most adults are familiar with hardship and have already learned to use empathy. If the offender is in some way unable to accept restorative action, then punitive action would have to be used.
  • Children often don’t know why what they’re doing is wrong. Punishment, therefore, may not be helpful if the child is unaware of why what they did was punishable, and, even if they know, can make them bitter. Schools should default to restorative justice on first offenses. However, if that doesn’t work, punitive justice is justified.
Individual victims have no obligation to their offender (or at least no more than to any other person) if he chooses not to be obligated. Communities have an obligation to minimize harm to other community members. The obligation to offenders is stopping further offense while minimizing harm to the offender himself. (utilitarian). Therefore, the community (and the victim, if perceives it as his/her obligation) have the obligation to educate the offender of his offence so that further offences may be prevented.
  • If a child is a offender, then instead of saying “he's just a child” you should say “this is a splendid opportunity for a lesson in empathy”
  • If the offender is an adult, then extra effort must also be taken to divulge the motive of the offender, and whether or not it was intentional.
Default to restorative, then go to punitive. Try to help the person, then try to stop the problem. If the offender committed the offence intentionally, with knowledge but no regard for the situation of the victim, then punitive action is recommended. However, if the act of offence was unintentional on the part of the offender, or if the offence was one of misinformation rather than ignorance/prejudice, then restorative action would be preferred.

Punitive punishment is the lazy solution to wrongdoing. It fixes the problem with coercion, which works under a specific set of circumstances, but doesn’t address the root of the issue. Some people, however, won’t listen to the excuse of “but it makes us feel bad,” no matter how hard we try. For those people who refuse to be helped, punishment is justified. If they won’t listen to reason, coercion will suffice. Help the person if you can, then stop the problem.

Khan, Izhar. Barbed . Wires. 13 Nov. 2017.

10 Dating After Prison

  • Discussion Questions
    • When should Antoine and Jack tell someone they are dating that they served time in prison?
    • Is there a moral difference between Antoine and Jack? If so, what might the difference be?
    • If instead of dating we were discussing friendships, would your answer be different? Why or why not?
    • When are people morally obligated to disclose information about themselves to their dates? (e.g. mental health issues, addictions, traumatic experiences, having children, financial difficulties?)

Our Final Team stance

Antione and Jack should tell someone that they have been to jail once enough time passes to where the partner has the ability to think and make a decision in a cool headed environment and not forced to make assumptions based off of prejudiced and sudden revelations

We find no moral difference from Jack and Antione, for the life of the person’s past does not define who that person is today.
  • 2nd chances are always a possibility… The person who killed someone could be considered a “saint” now... whereas the person who was falsely accused could be engaged in unlawful acts today
The partner will likely be repelled simply by the label “ex-criminal” or “person who has gone to jail” and be unwilling to trust the person completely. If the person were to say “I was innocent however”, it could be seen as a lie and further worsen the impression. If the person were to say “I was in it because I committed xxx”, then it raises the trust but confirms and worsens the label. Unless given time to be digested, the person will likely not think clearly and empathetically.

In regards to friendships, it is by all means important to bring up, however the timing is still key, there is no need to bring it up the second you meet someone, although it would be in both of their self interests to bring it up or to have it brought up.
  • It would be in the interest of the offender to tell his friend so the friend knows what he has dealt with and can help him
  • It would be in the interest of the friend to know so he is aware of possible outcomes...
    • Increased risk of abuse
The answer would be the same. You would not want to tell a person you just met of your opinion on the state of the universe as a whole or your quirky feet fetish. If you were already good friends, the revelation may serve as a good laugh or lead to more understanding and bonding, but an immediate revelation would create a terrible first impression that negates any effort to bond.

Transparency, although delayed, is essential, and proven scientifically to be the most important trait in a relationship Here. By delaying transparency, you allow time to work through the quick but often erroneous immediate-decision-making part of your brain. It allows your partner to see you in a new light, to see things from your own perspective, something that only comes when a person is calm and in deep contemplation. It is common for couples to share and confide in each other’s troubles once they’re close, but almost no relationship lasts where the pair complains to each other from the start. It is impossible to know everything about the other person, but through understanding it can be easy to decipher their motives. It also allows your partner a 2nd chance.

Hueb, Felipe. White Wooden Cabinet.

11 Contraceptive Controversy

  • Discussion Questions
    • When, if ever, is it appropriate for schools to implement policies that directly contradict the students’ parents’ cultural, moral, or religious values?
    • How much of the responsibility for educating teenagers about contraceptives and safe sex lies in the hands of schools, and how much lies in the hands of parents?
    • How, if at all, is the responsibility for a teenage pregnancy shared between multiple people, and who shares it?

Our Final Team stance

We do beilieve that it would be appropriate for a school(public school specifically) to implement policies that directly contradict some parents’ values or preferences if:
  • Based on facts, both statistical and anecdotal
  • A majority of students and parents consider it tolerable/acceptable (caters to the general populus)
  • Within the school’s ability to implement and enforce properly and completely
  • Not against the law
  • Will ultimately and realistically improve the school.
The school, parent, and student all share equal responsibility in the education of the student in safe sex and the use of contraceptives. It is the parent’s duty to at least address and give the student some awareness of the importance of learning about safe sex principles and practices. It is the duty of the school to create an environment where receiving education on safe sex is not a shameful topic, but havign unsafe sex carries heavy stigma. It is therefore the duty of the student to educate himself/herself and his/her partner on the topic of having safe sex, and to always at least use contraceptives when performing intercourse.

The responsibility for a teenage pregnancy is shared first and foremost between the one who is pregnant and her partner. The circle of responsibility then extends to the one who is responsible for their education in the matter, whether that be their Health teacher or their parents. Next, the responsibility is shared by those who hold influence on the pair’s behavior, most notably their friend group and their extended family (or anyone else who might exert influence over their choice NOT to receive education regarding the matter). If rather than refusal, the pair lacked knowledge that education on the matter is available, then the blame is shared on the school for not giving them the opportunity.

Response to religious perspective: You shouldn’t impose your beliefs on other people. By all means follow your own belief.

Mawananehewa, Sasith. Man in Black Crew Neck Shirt With White Bandage on His Face. 14 July 2020.

12 Harper’s Bizarre

  • Discussion Questions
    • . What, if any, ideas are worthy of cancellation, and who decides this standard?
    • When, if ever, can free speech be overridden by other values?

Our Final Team stance

As long as an idea does not incite violence or discrimination, no idea should be cancelled... It would be far more beeficial to society if we were to teach as opposed t shut down an individual based on one flawed opinion... You cannot necessarily blame an individual is the case of pure ignorance, especially if something was said without malicious intent.

Also, it is important to highlight the difference between a debate and speech, we believe that from every conversation there needs to be progression, not a winner or a loser, and denying the freedom of speech inherently disagrees with that claim. The solution to bad speech is not less speech, but more.

This does mean that bad speech will be heard but the best remedy to bad speech is more better speech. Flood the responses to a bad tweet or post with good information and good arguments. Like a bucket of water to a single candle.

Hild, Josh. Person Protesting next to Cops. 28 May 2020.

13 (De)funding the Police

  • Discussion Questions
    • Does the history of examples of racism in policing mean that the institution is incapable of reform and, thus, should be abolished?
    • When, if ever, are activists obligated to make their demands more palatable to the public in order to achieve their goals?

Our Final Team stance

Reform, actually, has already been tried, even in the state where George Floyd himself was killed.
  • Minneapolis police implemented a series of training programs designed to professionalize policing, with the hope that it would reduce abuses.
  • Officers were trained in how to respond to mental health crisis calls, how to de-escalate confrontations with the public, and how to be more self aware of racial bias. However, none of it worked.
Furthermore, any attempts at resisting any sort of arrest, even if a suspect is innocent, is almost impossible due to a lack of an armed populace, and militarized police.

The police, at this point, with full support of the government, are really just a tool of use for the state to use against the people. A long, long history of police reformism exists in the United States, and inevitably, un-harsh, lazy police reform changes nothing. The institution is, no, not reformable to a degree that will make significant change. That being said, a complete and immediate reconstruction of the police could also prove to be catastrophic...

Obligation is really a subjective term. Should they, to bring in more support from the public? Of course. However, nobody is ‘obligated’ to do anything. Most activists who support the defundment of the police aren’t satisfied with reform, and are not obligated to change their views, no matter who disagrees with them. Activists, however, rather than making their views to the public more palatable to the public, should consider thinking of an alternative for community support, and law enforcement, if they do not want police. Therefore, obligation to make their demands more palatable is not necessary, rather, an explanation of their alternatives.

Cummins, Jeanine. American Dirt Book Cover.

14 American Dirt

  • Discussion Questions
    • To what extent do we have a duty to refrain from telling certain stories, even if these stories are fictional?
    • To what extent does who we are impact the sorts of stories we can and should tell?
    • Parul Seghal criticizes the book for being “determinedly apolitical”. Is it morally impermissible for works of fiction to be apolitical?
    • To what extent does the artist herself matter in evaluating the quality of the art?
    • Do the intentions of the artist make a difference to the quality of the art that artist creates? Does the moral character of the artist make a difference to the quality of the art that artist creates?
    • Cummins maintains that she “did the work” and only wanted to “upend the stereotypes that I saw”. Did Cummins herself do anything morally blameworthy in writing the novel?

Our Final Team stance

There is no point, and it is not advantageous to get mad at something completely made up, as long as it is clear that a story is fictional.

The author of a book is by no means morally obligated to include specific political commentary.

"Jeannine Cummings took plenty of care in researching and discussing the topic of immigrants. Someone doesn’t have to be directly involved in something to properly talk about it. An author has no obligation to write about any topic a certain way. She chose not to engage in the political bickering of the subject because she wanted to talk about the human element of the issue. In ignoring the political aspect of the topic, she isn’t saying the politics isn’t important, she recognizes that, while many political views of the topic have been shared, the human impact is rarely talked about."

“The Tiger King.” Netflix.

15 The Tiger King

  • Discussion Questions
    • How should documentaries portray ethically dubious characters?
    • To what extent is moral and ethical editorializing an inevitable part of telling a story through documentaries?
    • When portraying real-life individuals, should filmmakers be more concerned about accuracy and fidelity to the truth or effective storytelling?
    • Is it morally desirable to ensure that filmmakers’ stories are absent of problematic assumptions and norms? If so, how should that be accomplished and who is responsible for it?

Our Final Team stance

Documentaries, if labeled as such, have an obligation to accurately portray reality. However, shows that inaccurately portray real characters are perfectly valid. If such a show exists, there must be a clear message of fiction, in order to not defame any individuals involved in the show. Anything that exaggerates reality or has any known bias should indicate such.

Project information

  • Category: Ethics Bowl / Public Speaking
  • Client: VCFL, State Tournament
  • Project date: 5 December, 2020
  • Skills used: Communication, Research, and Civil Discourse

More Info

Hey, this is some work I did with my team showcasing some different philosophies and approaches that we had to responding to some hard questions begged in December of 2020 for an ethics bowl tournament. Unfortunately we were only given 24 hours to prepare for this tournament, for it was a last minute call to invite our school to this tournament... However I led my team (I was the JV coach as a sophomore at the time), and I believe that we came up with some rather solid arguments...

In our team I primarily worked on: Dining Out During a Pandemic, The Korean Pop Industrial Complex, and Dating After Prison, however I ended up having to help across the board... Here is the case set we were given: Case Set

DISCLAIMER The following research is only intended to be used for educational purposes. The following contentions shall not be used against me, as the files are only a testament to my dedication and are not effected by personal opinion (nor do they reflect my personal opinion), as the point of Ethics Bowl is to find a persuasive argument that is supported by morals and a value premise. Not necessarily to showcase any personal opinion. This also explains the incongruity of philosophies displayed on this page