About
Indiana’s Ethics Bowl since 2014.
The Prindle Institute is proud to have been host of the Indiana High School Ethics Bowl (IHSEB) since its foundation in 2014. As a qualifying Regional Competition of the National High School Ethics Bowl program, the IHSEB makes use of the same format, rules, and regulations as the NHSEB. After the Regional Competition each February, the IHSEB winner annually advances to the NHSEB Central Divisional Playoffs. Winners of Divisional Matches will advance to the NHSEB National Championship held at the University of North Carolina each April. For more information on the Indiana High School Ethics Bowl, or for assistance starting a team at your school, please contact Associate Director and Organizer Jamie Herman.
IHSEB 2027
Join us in February.
The 2027 IHSEB will take place at the Prindle Institute for Ethics on the campus of DePauw University in Greencastle, IN. All teams compete in three preliminary rounds in the morning, and winning teams move on to elimination rounds in the afternoon. The IHSEB winner advances to NHSEB’s Central Divisional Playoffs, also hosted by the Prindle Institute, to compete for a seat at the National Championship in April 2027.
New2026-2027 registration process
Registration is a two-step process. First, register locally with the Prindle Institute for the IHSEB. Second, register nationally at NHSEB.org, where the $175 NHSEB registration fee is paid. Both steps should be completed in tandem. Schools may register one team between September and November 2026; after that, registration opens to second teams as space allows, with invitations going out in initial registration order. There is no additional cost to field a second team for the IHSEB.
Registration Fee
$175
Deadline
Dec 1, 2026
How Ethics Bowl works
Present, respond, reflect. Then switch.
Each Ethics Bowl match brings two teams head-to-head to discuss and evaluate real-world moral dilemmas drawn from the National High School Ethics Bowl’s annual case sets. Each round features a moderator, three judges, and an open audience. At the start of the match, teams and judges receive copies of the first case and question. The moderator reads the case title and question aloud, which neither team knows in advance. From there, the conversation begins. The five periods below run twice in every match, each time with a different case, so that both teams take a turn in the presenting role and a turn in the commenting role.
1 of 5
Moderator Period
~3 min
The moderator introduces the case and poses a question for discussion. Neither team knows the case title or question in advance, so preparation means building good habits of reasoning rather than rehearsing answers. Moderators also keep time and enforce the rules for the rest of the match.
2 of 5
Presentation Period
2 min conferral; 5 min presentation
Team A confers for up to two minutes, then presents a five-minute response based on their preparation and ethical reasoning. Judges are looking for a presentation that is clear and systematic, that addresses the central moral dimensions of the case, and that shows awareness of and responsiveness to opposing viewpoints.
3 of 5
Commentary Period
2 min conferral; 3 min commentary
Team B has two minutes to confer, then offers a three-minute commentary on Team A’s presentation. Good commentary is constructive: it advances the conversation by offering opportunities for clarification, raising questions for the presenting team, and pointing to considerations the presentation may have missed.
4 of 5
Response Period
1 min conferral; 3 min response
Team A confers again before responding to Team B’s commentary for up to three minutes. Judges want to see the presenting team take the comments seriously and reply to them adequately, rather than restating the original presentation.
5 of 5
Judges’ Period
10 min Q&A
Judges engage Team A in a ten-minute Q&A, asking thoughtful questions about their reasoning and approach. Answers should be effective, clear, and responsible. When the period ends, the teams switch roles for the second half of the match, so both sides present, respond, and reflect before judges score the round.
How judges score
At the end of each half, judges score each team independently on five criteria. Four of them track the periods above, so a team earns points for what it does when presenting, when commenting, when responding, and when answering the judges. The fifth, respectful dialogue, runs through the whole match and reflects what sets Ethics Bowl apart from debate: teams are rewarded for the depth and care of their thinking and for how seriously they take the other side, not for scoring points against them. A team can lose on the argument and still win on the quality of the conversation. Each half is scored out of 60 points.
15points
Presentation
Is it clear and systematic? Does it address the central moral dimensions of the case and show awareness of opposing viewpoints?
10points
Commentary
Is the commentary constructive? Does it advance the conversation with clarifications and questions for the presenting team?
10points
Response to Commentary
Does the presenting team take the comments seriously and reply to them adequately?
20points
Responses to Judges
Are judges’ questions answered effectively, clearly, and responsibly?
5points
Respectful Dialogue
Is each team committed to the central values of the competition, collaboration and the pursuit of truth, rather than combativeness or belittling rhetoric?
The Indiana High School Ethics Bowl is a proud regional and divisional partner of the National High School Ethics Bowl, based at the University of North Carolina’s Parr Center for Ethics.
