DePauw's Ethics Bowl team returned from San Antonio, Texas, as national champions after winning the 17th Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Championship on Feb. 28. The national champion team consisted of senior Ben Hoffman, senior Alex Landreville, senior Sara Scully, junior Ethan Brauer, and December 2012 graduate Mohammad Usman.
The competition was held as part of the 22nd annual meeting for the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics.
DePauw's Ethics Bowl team has a history of strong performances. The university's website reported that the team's journey to San Antonio marks the eighth time in nine years that the team qualified for the national championship.
According to team member Sara Scully, a second Ethics Bowl team comprised of five students at DePauw also qualified for nationals during the regional competition. However, only one team per school is allowed to advance to nationals.
Before the competition, teams are given cases that contain ethical issues to analyze. Scully explained that during the competition, a moderator asks a question about a case and the team must give a 10-minute presentation of an answer.
"That's definitely the hardest part [of the competition]," Scully said.
Afterwards, another team has a chance to respond to the first argument presented by pointing out holes and inconsistencies.
"We lost one of the preliminary rounds, so we thought we were cut out [from the competition], but we got wild-carded in," team member Alex Landreville said. "It still doesn't feel real."
According to Scully and team member Ben Hoffman, the team has been practicing hard for the past few months.
Hoffman said the team practices about 10 to 12 hours a week, usually on the weekdays but sometimes on Sundays too.
"During Winter Term we'd get lost in conversation, so we'd end up practicing like three hours a day most days," said Scully.
Members of both regional Ethics Bowl teams at DePauw attended practice to help everyone prepare.
"We think of it as a single team," said Landreville.
Hoffman emphasized the lively practice dynamic.
"We all come from very different backgrounds, so the way I prepare arguments is very different from the way others do," Hoffman said. "The arguments we come in with [individually] lay the foundation of how we talk about a case during practice."
Hoffman said the team is comfortable around each other due to the extensive amount of time they spend together, mostly in practice. He said teammates are not afraid to "badger each other" or point out weaknesses in each other's arguments during practice.
"It gets pretty vicious," Hoffman said. "[But] it builds us from a teamwork perspective and intellectual growth perspective."