University of South Florida St. Petersburg (USFSP) finished in third place at the Southeast Regional Ethics Bowl (SEREB) at the EpiCenter in St. Petersburg. They will be competing in the National Ethics Bowl on Mar. 3, 2011 in Cincinnati, Ohio.
“This is the 7th year we have participated in SEREB. USFSP has qualified for Nationals the 4 years that the regional has been a feeder for nationals. We came in 4th, 3rd, 5th, 3rd in Regionals,” Dr. Deni Elliot, the Ethics professor at USFSP, said in an email interview.
The Ethics Bowl is similar to a debate team. The schools competing receive 12 potential cases that could be topics for any individual round. The teams prepare ahead of time doing a lot of research to back up their arguments, which are usually for or against.
The competition is divided up into three rounds in the morning, a lunch break while the judges tally scores, the afternoon rounds with the top four teams, and finally an awards ceremony.
Teams are scored on how well they argued their point, their response to their opponent’s questions, comments about the responding team’s topic, and finally the response to the judges’ questions. Teams are ranked by score differentials. After the end of the first three rounds, the teams with the greatest sum of differentials win. For example, Eckerd College came in first place. In their first three rounds their differentials totaled 100 points. University of Central Florida, whose team placed second, had a differential total of 60.
The top five teams qualify for the National Ethics Bowl. There are 10 regional competitions in the country.
On Nov. 13, 10 students from USFSP and their coach, Amanda Decker, arrived at the EpiCenter ready to argue ethics on several different hot topic cases. USFSP was just one team out of 24 that arrived to compete. Other local teams were Eckerd College, University of South Florida, and University of Tampa.
Opening ceremony began with several speakers, such as Karen White and Dr. Deni Elliot from USFSP. Dr. Elliot has a long history with Ethics Bowl. She established the Northeast Regional Ethics Bowl as well as the Southeast Regional Ethics Bowl. She has also been involved in the Nation Ethics Bowl since 1997.
The first team USFSP came up against was Palm Beach Atlantic University (PBA). There was a coin toss to see who wanted to have the first chance of presenting and who would respond. USFSP won the toss and chose to respond. The first case was a called Minding Your Ethics. This case spoke about a gentleman sitting in a bar and overhearing a controversial discussion regarding gay’s that he did not agree with. This case was a favorite of Kelsie Vosburgh née McClain, a presenter on USFSP’s team.
“I got married during preparations for Ethics Bowl, and I told everyone,” McClain said. “But as for having the case I worked on be first, I was nervous.”
When it was USFSP’s turn to respond, McClain stated her counterargument. PBA claimed they appreciated her argument and then proceeded to tell her why she was incorrect in her thinking. Then the judges took their time asking PBA questions and trying to find holes in their argument.
Finally, it was USFSP’s turn to present their lead argument for a case. It was called Spanking. Arielle Stevenson for USFSP took the lead on this case. She presented her argument clearly and in a neutral manner.
“I just to be clear,” Stevenson said. “We do not support any type of physical abuse for a child, but in accordance to the American Heart Association, a firm pat to the behind when appropriate is allowed.”
In the end, the judges’ scores were close. USFSP pulled through with a differential of 11.
The next round was against University of South Carolina Aiken (USC). There was another coin toss and USC decided to present first. Their case was Outwitting Insurers and involved brokers scamming people who were terminally ill. Kelsie Vosbrugh took charge of this case as well and presented a good argument on why they did not agree with USC.
The case USFSP presented had to do with Facebook privacy. USFSP had a shaky start on this but Taylor Gaudens pulled herself together and pulled out a strong offense. The judging during this round was interesting though. While the judges are not required to ask questions, the teams were both thrown off when one of them did not.
The differential for this round was even closer. USFSP won by two points.
“I thought my team did great. Of course there were a few areas that could have been worked on, but with the timing and pressure, I am very proud of what they accomplished,” Tara McCarty said. She worked with Gaudens on researching the case.
The final team USFSP went against in the morning rounds was Georgia Military Academy Valdosta (GMA). USFSP presented first. The case was called Real-Life Avatar. The case had to do with the Belo Monte dam and the possible relocation of the natives in the area. Kevin McCarthy presented this case and did so strongly.
GMA presented a case called Spanish Ban on Bullfighting. Their presentation was interesting. Their spokesperson had a very short presentation and his teammates were not pleased by it. Taylor Gaudens took charge of this case for USFSP and made a great argument on why bullfighting was not ethical.
GMA agreed with this argument. This was the first time during this happened during the competition.
USFSP did a great job in this round and it sealed their third place title. They won with a 15 point differential.
During lunch, judges announced the final scores. Eckerd College came in first. University of Central Florida (UCF) came in second. University of South Florida St. Petersburg came in third. The Naval Academy came in fourth. Finally, Samford University came in fifth. However, they did not compete in the afternoon competition.
“I think that our team was very strong, which I find particularly impressive. This was the first year for the undergrads to participate and Amanda's first year coaching alone,” Elliot said when the scores came back.
The first round of afternoon sessions was UCF versus Samford and Eckerd versus USFSP. USFSP had been weary of going up against Eckerd. Their coach and Dr. Elliot had mentioned they were a tough team to beat.
“I was nervous,” Heather Hill, a presenter, said. None of the cases she worked on specifically had been presented yet. There was a good chance one of hers would be next.
Before the match against Eckerd, there was also a presenter switch. Danny McDonald came in for Taylor Gaudens. All of the cases Gaudens had worked on had been presented. There was a good chance that one of McDonald’s cases would come up as well.
The match against Eckerd began with a case called Children of Illegal Immigrants. This case had to do with the 14th amendment. Eckerd presented their argument first. Heather Hill battled her nerves and presented the team’s rebuttal. She stated her points clearly and her team felt she did a good job.
The second case was called CGI Child Porn. This case was presented by Danny McDonald.
“I could have been a lot more prepared and practiced a lot more,” McDonald said.
He had a rough start, but when he found his voice, the argument was very well spoken. It was the judges who really poked through the case. But with teammate Kevin McCarthy, USFSP pulled through.
Although Eckerd won the round by 10 points, Eckerd said USFSP had been the toughest team they had come up against so far.
“The team did great!” Coach Amanda Decker said. “I am so proud of all the hard work the presenters and researchers put in this semester, and very glad they had the opportunity to show that work off. The team remained strong through some tough competition and difficult judge’s questions.”
USFSP was awarded the third place trophy during the award ceremony. It currently resides in the Journalism Department on display.
No comments:
Post a Comment