Ethics Bowl win! (navel-gazing)
So... I want to talk about this weekend, about things that I did, and about how awesome it was and how it felt. And talking about that sort of thing feels... narcissistic. That I shouldn't be doing it, and that I'm really just bragging.
Well... That may well be, but dammit I'm proud of this weekend.
An opening caveat: this is all going to be about me. However: I was not alone in this. We were a team of three, that worked really quite hard over the last month to pull together and understand the ethics cases. In the debates, I spoke for the group. It was rare for the other guys to speak, it was mainly all me. Why? Because I was most fluent with the language of Ethics. Because I have experience with public speaking. Because I speak clearly and directly. Because I am an effective public speaker.
It was not the case that I won this event, nor that the win is predominantly mine, or that I was the cause of this: this was a group effort. We conferred before every speaking point and rebuttal, and both Ryan and Plu often spoke during each debate.
I want to make it very clear here that I am not diminishing or ignoring the work of the other guys in this, but the rest of this post is going to be primarily about me.
We got the greyhound down to Seattle on Friday night, myself, Ryan and Plu. We checked into our hotel, and got some food, and went to bed.
"Morning" happened at 7am. The three of us, plus Dr. Johnna Fisher (our coach, and a prof at UBC) walked from there to the HQ of Avanade (aka Accenture) for the event.
We had been issued 10 cases in early October, regarding various ethical issues: 15yo kids being prosecuted for being in possession of "child pornography" because their 15yo boyfriend/girlfriend had sent naked pictures of themselves to the other. People being written prescriptions for Ritalin because they have exams coming up (and no medical need). Stuff like that.
We had been told to focus on the Ethical theory, to tie all arguments into Ethical theory and to provide warrant for our claims.
The format was this: in each round, a coin would be tossed to see who would start. A case study would be issued for the debate, and a question (that we hadn't seen before now) related to the topic would be posed. Team 1 would present 10 minutes on the question, Team 2 would rebut for 5 minutes, then back to Team 1 for a final rebuttal. The judges would then question Team 1 for further clarification on a point, or maybe ask something new (sometimes extremely difficult) Then a 2nd case would be presented, a different question, and Team 2 would begin.
After three rounds, the 4 teams with the most wins would go on to the semi-finals. The two winners would then debate for final placement. The top 2 teams go through to the National Finals in Cincinnati, Ohio, in February.
It seemed to me that the first three teams that we faced did not get the same blurb as us. Bald-faced assertions were made. No ethical theory was even named nevermind discussed, until we raised that as an objection in our rebuttal ("Why? Why are you saying what you are saying? What's your justification???")
It also struck me that the judges were given a different blurb to us: one particular judge really scored us badly. When I queried her, she commented that we referred to ethical theory a lot, and didn't really discuss our own personal opinions. (the idea that my own personal opinion is along the lines of the ethical theory that I espoused clearly didn't occur to her)
We did reasonably well in those rounds. I have to admit, I got pretty frustrated with the continued and repeated use of rhetoric in this debate. A couple of teams had a single speaker (like us), but the speaker didn't seem to have any background in Philosophy at all. He (sometimes 'she') would wave his hands a lot, claim that 'this is terrible' or 'that is awful' without every mentioning *why* it was unethical.
We lost our third round. I feel that that was my fault, and I let the team down: I lost my temper. This was the third time I had to listen to more nonsensical rhetoric, that they failed to even read the question, they were addressing irrelevant points, and when someone on their team (we dubbed him 'mr flailing arms') finally brought up Utility, he brought it up in the context of 'personal Utility'. This is an abuse of the theory, as personal Utility has nothing to do with Ethics, and lots to do with just simple decision making. I like Utility a lot, and his abuse made me angry. My bad.
So now many teams were dropped, and we were in the semi-finals. We faced a new team. I was tired, and cranky at this point (we've maintained a high level of focus for about 4 hours now, with a brief break for lunch), and several of the eliminated teams are sticking around to watch. This was a team from Montana, and I liked them a lot. These guys were smart and well-dressed (we had noticed an inverse correlation between being well-dressed and well-prepared during the day :P ), and they spoke well.
We spoke on the topic of Synthetic Meat, and the question was "how much should food policy people take account of the situation of ranchers and such" if synthetic meat becomes a reality; a lot of these people may become jobless. And the Montana team laid out a rebuttal based on distribution issues, and ecological damage and such.
So I took our 60 seconds of preparation, and explained to the guys: "I'm sorry guys. I can't take this, but I need to resort to some Rhetoric." The look of shock on Ryan and Plu's face was, I have to admit, quite price-less. We all hate empty rhetoric, and I've been most vehemently against it, but... I was going to tear strips off the other team, and knew I needed to soften up the judges with an explanation first. I opened with:
I hate rhetoric. I hate it. For the most part, I believe it has no place in these kinds of debates, so please forgive me for a moment: When I was a kid, my father had a long talk with me about dealing with exams, and other situations where I have to deal with a question. He told me that first, I need to read the question. When I'm done that, I need to read the question again. And after that: read the question one more time.
Regarding [the 3 main points the other time had made]: they have failed to read the question. [Point 1] is irrelevant. [Point 2] is irrelevant. [Point 3] is irrelevant. We did not speak on those topics, because the question did not direct us to speak on those topics.
If looks could kill... :P
Meanwhile, Ryan and Plu were entertained by my 'when I was a kid' story. It had the additional benefit of being true. :)
So we won that semi-, and were through to the final. Where we met up with our nemesis from Round 3. Now, both the teams who didn't win round 4 were in the room, as were all the other spectators from the other debate. It was a decent sized room, I'm going to guess that there were maybe 40-50 people in there. People from business, from schools, professors, students, and professionals. The pressure was on.
They won the coin toss, and we had to open. The topic was... Women and Health Insurance. Basically, women in many states in the US have to pay 20-50% more on their premiums than men because... Well. Just because. Pricing based on race is illegal, but basing it on gender is, apparently, ok. Our argument was [blah].
In their rebuttal... Mr Flailing Arms irked me. He opened his mouth and uttered the name "Ayn Rand". I'm not entirely clear what his argument was. There was, I think, just white noise. "Ayn Rand" makes me angry.
I savoured the moment when our final rebuttal started. My stance on Ayn Rand is known by our team. I had mentioned in the past that if Ayn Rand was brought up, I would likely lose it. Ryan... well, he looked worried when I began to speak. I calmly dealt with their minor points, many of which didn't even address the issue. Then I dealt with Rand.
This is an Ethics debate. We are supposed to justify our arguments through ethical theory, and to refer to philosophers and ethicists of the past for our ideas. Ayn Rand is neither of these, and is merely a novelist. She is not a philosopher, and certainly not an ethicist, and she should not even be in this room.
And the room exploded. Seriously, there were massed gasps, and whispered sounds of incredulity. The people I could see behind the other team had their hands over their mouths in "ohmygod, didhejustsaythat?!?!" poses of horror. The judges were somewhat goggle-eyed, and Mr Flailing Arms? His jaw hit the table.
My god, but it felt good. :P
The tables were turned, and the other team had to deal with Medical Professionals' Role in Torture.
Now... Before we came out, weeks ago, we talked about how we wanted to deal with the various cases; we had agreed that we were really going to argue authentically only. We were not going to be contrary for the sake of it, we would only argue positions that we felt were defensible positions. Basically: no bullshit.
These guys, from Washington (I think), responded to the question fantastically. They were an entirely different team from earlier that afternoon. They named theories, they justified their statements, they backed up their arguments, and they adopted a worthy position.
Our rebuttal:
As people being educated in the ways of Philosophy, one of those skills is analysis and the recognition of arguments and argumentation. We feel that the other team has answered that question almost perfectly, and the only lack they suffered was due to time. We fully endorse their answer, and will present some arguments in the same line that we're sure they would have gotten to if they had a mere 5 more minutes. [blah blah blah]
The judges, and audience, were clearly shocked at this position. This is not what we were supposed to be doing (apparently), and the other team (when they got their final rebuttal) merely fish-mouthed for a bit, and then thanked us. We honestly could not fault their arguments at the time, and admired their position. We felt that this would put us in second position for failing to complete our assigned goal, but.... So what. We were going to Ohio anyway, and (frankly) we were not going to adopt the pro-homeland security position just for the sake of an argument.
And then, when points were issued, we won. We were surprised. Audibly so (the final judge quickly asked if I'd prefer him to change his scores... :P ). Johnna was over-joyed, and we got the trophy.
A guy, a Philosophy prof (I think) came up to me and (clearly self-consciously) thanked me for what I said regarding Ayn Rand.
Another guy, veteran of the Ethics Bowl commended me on the best smack down he had ever seen at any of the events. (again: Ayn Rand)
We met up with the team from Montana later, and drank beer til I left at 1am. One of the greatest compliments I've received, I think, is (in reference to the 'irrelevant points' thing):
I hated you so much at that moment, but I hated that I agreed with you even more.
And now I'm home. I have been validated. I do know what I'm doing. I am good at philosophy, and it's not just my profs patting me on the head.
I'm tired now, and sleepy, but it's the kind of 'tired' that I feel has been earned.
I feel vindicated; I feel proud. (and I'm watching carefully for hubris ;) )