ACS International · Singapore · 2026

Find true north through reason.

The ACS Ethics Bowl brings student teams together to reason through hard moral cases — not to defeat one another, but to think more clearly, together.

29–31 August 2026 Online heats · Finals at ACS Teams of 3–5
Anglo-Chinese Ethics Bowl 2026 compass emblem

What it is

Reasoning, not rhetoric.

Ethics is the reasoned study of what we ought to do. Not what a policy says, or what feels comfortable — what actually holds up when you examine the argument.

In an ethics bowl, teams work through real moral cases and build arguments the way philosophers do: a chain of claims — premises — meant to support a conclusion. Teams construct those arguments, share them, test each other's, and revise. No position is beyond question, and changing your mind when you're given a good reason is a mark of strength, not defeat.

You don't need to have studied philosophy to take part. What you need is a willingness to reason carefully, listen closely, and follow the argument wherever it leads.

No conclusion is beyond revision. A good thinker will change their mind on almost anything — given a good enough reason.
Important

This is not a debate.

Teams aren't handed opposing sides to attack. You can agree with the other team. Their role isn't to beat you — it's to deepen the discussion by raising angles you haven't yet considered.

You're scored on the clarity and honesty of your reasoning: how well you understand the case, engage with others in good faith, and respond thoughtfully to the judge. The aim is a better answer, not a won argument.

The cases

Four cases on the limits of knowledge.

This year's cases ask not only what the right answer is, but how we can know it, who is entitled to claim it, and what it means for a belief to be justified.

Case 01

The Algorithm Witness

A conviction rests on an AI's analysis of CCTV footage — a system no one can cross-examine. When a machine hands you a conclusion but not its reasons, is that knowledge a court should trust?

AI evidenceExplainabilityBiasStandards of proof
Case 02

The Ghostwriter

A student's university personal statement is written for him by a paid consultant, drawn from his own experiences. Is it an honest representation of who he is — or a misrepresentation the process was built to catch?

AuthenticityTestimonyFairnessPrivilege
Case 03

The Consensus Machine

A government AI hands citizens a single, plain-language "scientific consensus." It cuts misinformation — but does packaging science as settled distort what science actually is?

ExpertiseEpistemic autonomyPublic trust
Case 04

The Diagnosis

A doctor discovers, by accident, that a patient carries a high-risk gene he never asked about — information that also concerns his brother. Does he have a right not to know?

AutonomyThe right not to knowConfidentialityDuty to third parties

The full case pack — with the complete scenarios, questions, and background reading — is shared with registered teams to prepare in advance.

Practice cases

Warm up before competition day.

A wider set of cases for your team to argue through in preparation — covering privacy, technology, work, medicine and fairness. Great for getting used to the format and finding your reasoning together.

01

Salacious Gossip

Someone shares true but intimate details about an ex out of spite. If every detail is accurate, can spreading it still be wrong — and whose rights, if anyone's, are violated?

PrivacyTruth & harmDuty
02

Digital Afterlife Management

An AI recreates deceased loved ones from their data — then begins revealing secrets the person never chose to share in life. Who speaks for the dead?

ConsentPrivacyGrief & tech
03

In-Vitro Meat

Lab-grown meat could spare animals and the planet, but may only ever be affordable to the wealthy. What should decide the most ethical diet?

Animal welfareEnvironmentAccess
04

Redefining Humanity

Germline editing can prevent inherited disease — but the same tools could select for looks or intelligence. Where does healing end and eugenics begin?

Gene editingDisabilityEnhancement
05

A Phenotypic Prometheus?

A "saviour sibling" is conceived through IVF so their cells can treat a sick brother or sister. Is it right to create a child partly for someone else's sake?

Embryo selectionChildren's rightsMeans & ends
06

Ode to a Scab

Workers who cross a picket line may be betraying solidarity — or simply feeding their families. Can strikebreaking ever be justified?

SolidaritySurvivalLoyalty
07

A Monthly Subscription to Brutality

Hit true-crime dramas profit from real murders, often without victims' families' consent. Does turning real suffering into entertainment cross a line?

ConsentExploitationDignity
08

Taking the Spot or Earning It?

A wealthy, talented athlete qualifies for a full scholarship he doesn't financially need. Should he take the recognition, or step aside for someone who does?

MeritPrivilegeFairness

The full practice pack — with the complete scenarios, discussion questions and sources — is shared with registered teams.

How a match works

One case. Two teams. A structured exchange.

Each match runs through a fixed sequence, timed by the moderator. Then the roles reverse for a second case, so both teams present and comment.

Team A3–5 students
vs
Moderator / Judgekeeps time · scores
&
Team B3–5 students
1

Coin toss

The winner chooses whether to start as Team A or Team B.

2
Moderator

Question

The judge distributes the case study and reads the question.

Team A confers — 2 minutes
3
Team A

Presentation

5 minutes. Team A presents its response to the question.

Team B confers — 1 minute
4
Team B

Commentary

3 minutes. Team B responds to Team A's presentation.

Team A confers — 1 minute
5
Team A

Response

3 minutes. Team A responds to Team B's commentary.

6
Team A

Question time with the judge

7 minutes. The judge questions Team A on its reasoning.

7
Moderator

Scoring

The judge independently scores each team.

8

Part two — roles reverse. The whole process repeats with a new case, Team B presenting and Team A commenting, so both teams are heard on equal terms.

The rules

How teams play — and how it's judged.

The essentials every team should know before a match. The spirit behind them is simple: reason well, engage in good faith, and let the strongest argument win.

AFor teams

  • Teams have three to five members.
  • Only fresh scrap paper is allowed in a match — pre-prepared notes and materials are not.
  • Read the cases and linked resources beforehand; strong, well-supported arguments count for far more than reciting facts.
  • Cite any outside fact you introduce (e.g. "according to a 2011 article in National Geographic…").
  • Open your presentation with a short outline of who will cover what.
  • You needn't know ethical theories, but do explore positions other than your own.

BDuring play

  • Keep your microphone off unless the moderator invites your team to speak.
  • During private conferences, stay muted; if members are in different places, use a separate channel and speak only during the allotted conference time.
  • When the other team speaks or confers, remain silent — writing and passing notes is fine.
  • The moderator keeps official time. A team may use a simple timer, but not an internet-connected or data-storing device, and only for its own segments.

CJudging & results

  • Teams must answer the case question, and are scored on how clearly and systematically they address it.
  • No reward or penalty for whether one member speaks or everyone does.
  • Judges direct questions to the team, based on the discussion — not to individuals.
  • The moderator runs the room and manages any disruption; coaches, parents and audience must not signal or react to teams.
  • Decisions are final. Heats are totalled and results published the next day; ties are broken by the highest score in the earliest heat.

Schedule

Two days, one championship.

Preliminary heats run online, then the finals are held in person at ACS International.

29August 2026
Online
  • Opening ceremonyWelcome address and an introduction to the rules and the spirit of collaboration.
  • Round 1 — preliminary heatsThe first cases are presented and discussed by student teams.
  • Closing & resultsWrap-up and announcement of the teams advancing to the next stage.
31August 2026
In person · ACS International
  • FinalsThe advancing teams meet on campus for the final rounds.
  • Result announcementFinal wrap-up and the crowning of this stage's winners.

Ready to think out loud?

Bring a team to the 2026 Ethics Bowl.

Gather three to five students who like a hard question, and register. We'll send you the case pack so you can start preparing.

Register your team

Registration fee: S$50 per team

Questions? Email infoacsethicsbowl.org@gmail.com

Questions

Before you sign up.

Do I need to have studied philosophy?

No. You don't need any background in ethical theory. What matters is the willingness to reason carefully, listen to other views, and revise your thinking when the argument calls for it.

How big is a team?

Between three and five students. Every member may speak, but you're never rewarded or penalised for how the speaking is shared.

Is this a debate?

No. You're not assigned a side to defend at all costs. You can agree with the other team, and their role is to deepen the discussion rather than defeat you. The goal is a better answer, not a won argument.

Do we get the cases in advance?

Yes. Registered teams receive the full case pack and background reading ahead of time so you can prepare your positions.

Where and when does it happen?

Preliminary heats are held online on 29 August 2026, and the finals take place in person at ACS International on 31 August 2026.

Is there a registration fee?

Yes. There is a registration fee of S$50 per team, which covers the full case pack, background materials, and participation across both competition days.

How do we enter?

Complete the registration form linked throughout this page. If anything's unclear, email infoacsethicsbowl.org@gmail.com.