2008 Arsht Ethics Debate at SportsFest

Hecht freshmen defeat defending champion Stanford; Pearson comes in second

Flyer for the Feb. 3 debates
2008 Cases

For more information, contact Ethics Society President Josh Morales.

The Second Annual Arsht Ethics Debates at SportsFest featured a suite of challenging new cases and a new champion as Hecht residential College, fielding an all-freshman team, placed first among six teams. Pearson came in second and a team from defending champion Stanford placed third.

"Stand up and believe," UM Ethics Program donor Adrienne Arsht told debaters during the Feb. 3 trophy presentation ceremony attended by the SportsFest debate teams, observers and a distinguished panel of judges including UM Citizens Board members and UM faculty. The winners:

First Place: Hecht Residential College

Eric Allseits, Freshman; Chemistry and Physics
Melissa Hebra, Freshman; International Finance and Marketing, Legal Studies
Daniel Rosenberg; Freshman; History

Second Place: Pearson Residential College

Brandon Calabro, Junior; Computer Science and Mathematics
Shira Kharrazi, Freshman; Psychology
Pravin Patel, Junior; Political Science and Philosophy
Vikalt Patel, Junior; Biology
Emily Wingrove, Freshman; Undeclared

Third Place: Stanford Residential College

Karam Basra, Freshman; Arts and Sciences
Monika Freiser, Freshman; Biology
Rachael Goldberg, Freshman; Political Science and Psychology
Jaime Williams, Freshman; Psychology

Cases addressed issues in college football's "play for pay" movement, hockey aggression and other topics.
         
The debate is intended to create an opportunity for students to think about important ethical dilemmas in sport and to learn to frame effective ethical arguments. 

The Arsht Ethics Debate included six teams of 2-4 students representing Apartment Area, Hecht, Pearson, and Stanford. The debate was structured in the same manner as the fall Ethics Debate. During the individual rounds of the debate, a modified version of the official Ethics Debate rules were used – see below for a full outline of the rules. Students had the opportunity to participate in Ethics Debate training using four scenarios, two of which were used during Round 1 and other two in Round 2.  Ethics Society members developed the scenarios.

Students spent the two weeks between January 14th and February 3rd preparing for the debate.  All participating teams received 100 points for their dorms; winners received special prizes - gift certificates from Books & Books.

The debate would not have been possible without the help of the volunteer judges:

UM Faculty

Royce Burnett, Ph.D., School of Business Administration
Mary Coombs, J.D., School of Law & past Chair, Faculty Senate
Raul de Velasco, M.D., UM Ethics Programs and Chair, Ethics Committee, Baptist Hospital

UM Citizens Board

Robert G. Berrin, Capital Realty Services, Inc.
Jerome Cohen
Robert  D.W. Landon, III, Shareholder, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A.
Robert Rubin, J.D., CB President Elect, Topp Companies
Richard M. Sepler
Mary M. Young, Miami Location Leader, IBM

UM Ethics Society Students

Alexander Gonzalez, Biology Major
Caity Hughes, Finance Major
Kristyn Medina, Accounting Major

SportsFest, an annual three-day spring program, is one of UM's most popular student activities. Students generally compete in athletic and other events representing their residential college. In 2007, SportsFest featured the Arsht Debates as a first-ever academic component. This year marks the second year for the debates. Click here to read more about the 2007 Arsht Debates.

Detailed Ethics Debate Rules

1. Each round will begin with a coin toss. The team that wins the coin toss may elect to present first (to be the team designated as Team A) or to have the other team present first (and thus to be the team designated as Team B). 
2. Copies of the first case and question will be distributed to the competitors and to the judges. Neither the judges nor the team members will have advance knowledge of which case will be presented or which question will be asked. 
3. Team A will have up to thirty seconds to confer, after which a spokesperson for Team A may speak for up to 5 minutes.
4. Next Team B will have up to thirty seconds to confer, after which Team B may speak for up to 3 minutes in response to Team A’s presentation. 
5. Team A will then have up to thirty seconds to confer, followed by 3 minutes to respond to Team B’s challenge. 
6. The judges will then conduct up to a 5 minute question and answer session with Team A. Before asking questions, the judges may confer briefly (no more than 30 seconds).
7. At this time, more than one team member may respond to a given judge’s question. Team members are not expected to confer for longer than 20 to 30 seconds after a question has been asked. 
8. Each judge should have time for one question and one follow-up. Judges may ask more questions if time permits.
9. Each judge will then give Team A a score on a scale of 1 to 15 with 15 being the highest score. They will also give Team B a score on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest score. Judges will base their analyses on the following criteria:
1. Consistency
2. Clarity and Intelligibility
3. Comprehension of Ethically Relevant Factors
4. Avoidance of Ethically Irrelevant Issues
5. Completeness in Analysis 

The judges are not permitted to discuss their scoring decisions with each other; each judge is to rely on his or her own private judgment.

1. After the judges have made their scoring decisions, a second case will be given to the same two teams. 
2. The competition will proceed as above, with the Team B presenting for 5 minutes in the second half, Team A offering a 3 minute commentary, Team B responding for 3 minutes, and then Team B participating in the judge’s question and answer session. 
3. At the end of the round, the judges will announce the scores for both the first half and for the second half. Thus, in each round, each team will have the opportunity to present one case and to respond to the other team’s presentation of another case, for a total of 20 possible points.
4. Once Round 1 is concluded in the foregoing manner each team’s scores will be summed and tabulated. The two highest scoring teams will advance to the final round. In the event of a tie, the team with the higher median score (rather than average score) will advance to the final round.
5. The final round will proceed congruently with the treatment of the two remaining cases, and will yield the Arsht Ethics Debate at SportsFest 08 Champion!     

2007 National Champions!

UM's Ethics Society Debate Team prevailed over the nation's leading teams at the 2007 competition in Cincinnati. A core feature of the annual conference of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, the 13th National Championship Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl (IEB) featured 32 undergraduate teams that ranked well in eight regional autumn competitions. More»