top of page
giammarco-boscaro-zeH-ljawHtg-unsplash.png

Guidelines and Rules

The International Philosophy Olympiad consists of two rounds: regional and international. Finalists from each region will advance to the international round.

Regional Round (Essay)

Regions are broken up into the following: 

​

  1. East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania

  2. Europe, Russia, and Central Asia

  3. Middle East, North Africa, Central and South Africa

  4. South America, Central America, Mexico, and the islands of the Caribbean

  5. North America

On the launch date of the regional round, students receive three prompts of which they choose one to respond to. Good essays will follow the criteria and guidelines stated below.

 

See Resources for more information on how to prepare for the Olympiad. 

Essay Guidelines

​​​​

  • Must choose one of three economic questions released on launch day.

  • Essays must be no more than 1000 words 

  • Submissions must be in PDF format.

  • An MLA-style bibliography must be included.

​

See our Resources page for a sample prompt and essay. 

Judging Criteria

 

1. Depth of Philosophical Understanding

Identify the core philosophical approach and the issues it hopes to solve.

 

Explore beyond surface-level analysis to demonstrate an understanding of theories by identifying their real-world applications.​

​

2. Clarity of Expression

Present your arguments and interpretation with academic precision and solid articulation. Be concise, and make sure your argument is intelligible to a reader.

​

Choose a position and commit to it, your clarity of language should reflect the clarity of your reasoning.

​

3. Structure and Purpose

Every paragraph should serve a clear function for your argument. Begin with a defined thesis and develop it logically across your essay.

​

Transitions must be smooth and purposeful, showing how each idea connects to the next. 

​

4. Originality and Critical Thinking

While your essay should be rooted in research and evidence, essays should display unique perspectives and creativity.

​

A strong response challenges assumptions and explores counterarguments. Do not be afraid to take bold positions.​

​

5. True Scholarship

Philosophy is highly subjective and therefore can be misunderstood. Arguments should reflect a true and honest consideration for the perspective the philosophy or theory. 

 

Every effort should be made to see the perspectives of philosophers as they intended.​

International Round (Debate)

On the day of the debate, students are assigned a philosopher, philosophical school, or ethical framework to represent, and are asked a to argue their position from one of the three prompts.

 

Debate prompts are released 7 days prior to the debate. including a position briefing that outlines the assigned roles however, independent research is encouraged. 

 

See Resources for more details.

 

The debate will follow the format outlined below.

Debate Format:
 

Modified Parliamentary Style (individual-based, not team-based)

​​​

Positions:

​Finalists are assigned:

  • a philosopher (e.g., Kant, Nietzsche)

  • a philosophical movement (e.g., existentialism, utilitarianism)

  • an ethical perspective (e.g., cosmopolitanism, virtue ethics).

 

Debate Structure


Opening Statement (3 minutes) – Each argument is presented.

​

Opponent Rebuttal (4 minutes) – Opposing responses and critiques of the opposition.

​

Cross-Examination (4 minutes total) – Moderated Q&A between participants.

​

Closing Statement (2 minutes) – Closing arguments.

​

Each debate is approximately 15–20 minutes, including transitions and brief moderator remarks.

 

Possible Topics:

​

  • Is social media an obstacle or an opportunity for authentic selfhood?

    • (Existentialism vs. Social Constructivism)
       

  • Should AI be granted moral consideration?

    • (Utilitarianism vs. Kantian Ethics)

​​

  • Can war ever be ethically justified?

    • (Just War Theory vs. Pacifism)

​

Total time: Approximately 15–20 minutes including transitions and moderator remarks.​

Judging Criteria:

​

  1. Clarity of Argument (25%)
    Present a clear, focused argument addressing the question.
     

  2. Depth of Philosophical Insight (25%)
    Demonstrate understanding and nuanced interpretation of the assigned philosopher’s ideas.
     

  3. Evidence & Research Quality (25%)
    Use relevant philosophical texts, quotes, and examples effectively to support your position.
     

  4. Rhetorical Persuasiveness (25%)
    Arguments must be formulated with rhetorical devices while avoiding logical fallacies.

Each finalist will be evaluated by our panel of scholars, professors, and social science professionals.

​​

There will be first, second, and third place finalists.

Rules & Conduct:
 

  • Respect & Civility: No personal attacks or interruptions. Engage ideas respectfully.
     

  • Factual & Philosophical Integrity: Arguments must be grounded in philosophical texts, logical reasoning, and clearly cited ideas. Misrepresentation or fabrication leads to disqualification.
     

  • Time Limits: Strict adherence enforced. Timekeeper will signal at 1 minute and final 10 seconds.

Anti-Plagiarism Policy

 

Zero Tolerance for Cheating

​

All essays debate research must reflect the student’s own work. Any instance of plagiarism, AI-generated content without disclosure, or unauthorized collaboration will result in disqualification. Submissions will be reviewed with advanced plagiarism and authorship detection tools.

bottom of page