League Policies
The primary responsibility of competitors is to argue in a way that demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of both the case, the law, and the US Constitution, and deliver a clear and compelling presentation of their position with utmost integrity and professionalism.
Competitors should not think of Moot Court presentations as prepared speeches. While they should have major points of information they want to address in their presentations, the most important consideration in any Moot Court round is addressing the questions and points mentioned by the judges. This is an important way that Moot Court differs from all other types of debate: students get real-time indicators of the issues that matter to the judges based on the questions the judges present. Therefore, top competitors will tailor their arguments on the fly to those issues to have the best chance of convincing their particular judge(s) of their arguments.
In addition to simulating argument before a court of law, this event mirrors the way persuasive conversations work in real life. When attempting to convince someone of a point in a conversation, persuasive individuals do not merely continue with a planned argument when a listener mentions specific reservations about a point. Instead, they adjust their arguments to address those concerns. In the same way, competitors should view Moot Court as a “respectful conversation” similar to one they might have with a senator or congressman, or the President of the United States. Students should approach the round as a conversation with the judge(s) while maintaining the extreme level of respect appropriate for justices of the Supreme Court.