Room A

Applicants

Speaker 1

On being asked questions on the relevant authorities the Speaker is trying to

reserve it for the other contentions. The speaker gesticulates excessively, but
has a confident demenor overall. Not being able to satisfy the questions put
forth by the bench, the speaker rests his arguments.

Speaker 2

The speakers fast pace is very difficult to comprehend. Even after the bench
asks her to slow down, it doesnt make a difference. The bench even assures
her that they will not be running away. After asking her a question, they
prohibit her from accepting a chit from the researcher and insist that she
answers it on her own. If the lapwing birds could fly as fast as she spoke, they
wouldve migrated to a nation far, far away. The researcher now answers the
question which the speaker was unable to.

Repondents

Speaker 1

The speaker is dumbfounded when he doesnt have an answer to the

simplest of questions about the preamble. He isnt able to cite any cases to
strengthen his case either. It looks as if the teams are playing a game of
passing the question as no one, neither the speakers, nor the researchers are
able to give a satisfactory answer. On being asked by the bench if there is
anything else hed like to add, he answers in the negative as he wipes a bead
of sweat from his forehead.

Speaker 2

Two minutes into the speech, the level of debate reaches the height of her
heels. Her well- structured argumentation sets her apart from her co-agent.
Unfortunately, when a question arises, she is unable to find the answer in the
plethora of pages before her. But she quickly makes up for it by
characterising her stance effectively. Her courteous nature got her an extra
two minutes to put forth her relevant points.

Room B

Applicants

Speaker 1
The speaker starts by stating the facts involved in the case. Initially, she
seems nervous as she struggles with questions. Mundane facial expressions
fill the courtroom as the speaker goes on with her contentions in a matter-of-
fact manner, tackling the judges with ease and, while nervousness does still
seem to exist, her words are doing a good job of keeping it hidden. The
speaker realizes she is running out of time and speeds up her address. The
judges shoot questions in a rapid-fire manner, and the speaker struggles a
bit, as she seems unable to satisfactorily answer the bench. Time runs out for
her, and she proceeds to her seat seemingly leaving the bench unconvinced
of her arguments.

Speaker 2

The speaker starts straight away with his issues and manages to speak quite
a bit before the impending questions start arriving. He faces some difficulty
on technical and legal definitions and ends up apologizing to the bench for a
wrongly stated definition. The bench asks him to provide proof on a certain
point, to which the speaker replies that he cannot indeed prove the same. As
the speaker runs out of time, the bench concedes to grant a few more
minutes for him to finish his submission. The speaker is struggling to properly
convey his side of the story but somehow manages to gain an affirmative nod
from the judges for one of his answers to a crucial point raised by the bench.

Repondents

Speaker 1

The speaker introduces herself and starts with a spring in her step and a
distinct roll in her R(s). She is very confident in her approach and gives an
articulate and concise response to the first questions raised by the judges.
She moves on with her contentions and the judges have a good time jesting
about pipelines in general, before returning to the matter at hand. She
quickly tries to conclude her arguments with time running out. Humour is
abound as both, the speaker as well as the bench, indulge in a witty
exchange of words with regard to extension of time. Struggling with technical
terminology, she moves back to legal arguments to aid in her increased
speed. The judges agree to one of her contentions after a submission is made
to the bench, and she proceeds to summarise her last contention and
conclude her address.

Speaker 2

The second speaker seems even more confident than her co-speaker as she
starts off wasting no time in coming to her contentions. The bench asks if the
some of the general principles of public international law are absolute, which
causes the speaker to stumble a little in her fluid speech. Nonetheless, she
regains her composure and continues with her address, dealing with the
points raised by the judges with clarity and precision. As was the case with
her co-speaker, she has witty responses ready to get out of tight spots which
the benchs questions might put her into. Moving to the last contention for
the respondents, the speaker continues with an unwaning vigour and energy.
Running out of time, she is pushed to use an arguendo to satisfy the bench.
Near the end, she struggles with a few questions, but regains a passionate
approach, extensively using her hands and movements to convey her
conviction in what she is speaking, and properly concludes her address.

Room C

Applicants

Speaker 1

The speaker looks ready from the very beginning as she approaches the dais
with full of documents in her hands. Being well versed with the facts, the
bench asks her to proceed to her arguments. The speaker flawlessly puts
forth the law points with respect to the case. She is able to convince the
bench by her answers to their questions . The research done by the team is
commendable as is evident from the speakers arguments.

Speaker 2

The speaker presents her arguments efficiently. She is able to impress the
bench by her eloquence. However, she struggles to answer the questions
raised. The speaker is unable to satisfy the bench with regard to a loophole in
the research and chooses to move forward. This catalyses the bench to ask
more questions. She seems to start losing her confidence.

Repondents

Speaker 1

The speaker apparently has a hard time and resorts to the use of vernacular
language which was immediately objected to by the bench. Further, the
bench refuses to grant him extra time to answer a particular question. The
speaker has an unaccounted amount of love with the word Your Excellency
as he states the term for a dozen times while speaking. The bench is having a
gala time testing the speaker.

Speaker 2

The speaker tries to impress the bench with his arguments but to no avail. He
is vague while defining the key terms, giving the bench an opportunity to
question him. He is trying to make a rational comparison between facts
pertinent to the case. He answers the questions but struggles when it comes
to the accuracy of the answer. The speaker gets redundant when he starts
reiterating his arguments again.

Room D

Applicants

Speaker 1

Judges seem to be well aware of the facts, ask the speaker to state only
whats relevant to his issue, which was stated quite well by the speaker.

The speaker seems confident, enough to plead ignorance on a fact essential

to laying down his case, as was pointed out by the bench.

By the number of clarifications being sought by the judges, and the answers
those clarifications are getting from the counsel, the submissions of the
counsel do not seem to be in line with the opinion of the bench at all.

The sheer volume of questions thrown at him leave him a little speechless
and confused. In which state he concluded his case.

Speaker 2

The speaker seems quite nervous from the start and needed a bit of time to
regain confidence. His teammates had to constantly pass notes/chits to help
him.

More questions from the judges, more fictional answers from the speaker.
Some of the concepts mentioned seem just as non existent as gender
equality in some educational institutions.

The speaker is trying to move further with his issues but the damage has
already been done and the nervousness on his face shows that he might have
realised this.

With cold feet and shaken confidence, the speaker tries to manipulate further
questions by the judges, but the bench sees right through it.

With his speech finally coming to an end, he moved to his prayer to end his
speech.

Repondents
Speaker 1

the speaker made an impressive and systematic start to the pleadings. The
judges seem to be agreeing to the arguments against the applicants. The
agreement was short lived, as the speaker failed to provide a scientific
authority to back his arguments.

Some parallel analogies used by the speaker to justify his arguments are truly
inspired, but the overall performance can only be judged by the bench.

Speaker 2

It seems like this speaker has planned a landslide for himself. First question -
answered - gives rise to the second question - answered - gives rise to the
third .. and so on.

Cites a case, negated by the judges.

Justifies the stance of the farmers as a reason of necessity .

At this point, the speaker was a bit rude in his address as he got so lost in his
arguments, he stopped addressing the bench as lordship/ excellency and
started having a mano- a- mano conversation.

The bench still seems to have considered their point and raised further
questions on the issue which led further to the speaker reciting the prayer
and concluding their argument.

Room E

Applicants

Speaker 1

The confidence with which the first speaker begins her speech is
commendable. The judges, being already well versed with the facts, ask the
speaker to move directly to her contentions, which she graciously follows.

Questions on principles of international law pertinent to the problem are also

asked. The speaker with utmost calm answers all the questions put forth
taking help of judicial precedents and legal provisions.

The judges show no leniency and continuous cross-questioning is happening,

making this speech an interesting one.

Speaker 2
The speaker after making his introduction moves directly to the two
contentions that he pleads he will be dealing with.

Cause and effect is an important part of his speech when it comes to

international law and its principles.

The speaker is very persuasive and adamant in his submissions and stands
by his speech. With confidence, the speaker is explaining why he demands
compensation, trying to satisfy judges and finally ends his speech with his
prayer.

Repondents

Speaker 1

The speaker started off by drawing a parallel between the traties and
conventions that both the countries are a parts.

He is not only dependent on the conventions but also is applying a lot of legal
and judicial provisions to solidify his arguments.

He is able to answer all the questions put forth to him with consistent
confidence even in times of serious grilling and adversity.

After dealing with his issues, to the best of his capabilities, the speaker
affirmatively is asking departure, inviting the second speaker to deal with the
rest of the issues.

Speaker 2

The speaker is picking up where the speaker one left.

The judge is adamant on his question and is inquisitive about the conditions
of customary law, and on being unable to receive answers from the speaker,
makes it a general question for the whole team to answer.

The judges are not too satisfied by the arguments of the speaker but are
trying to revitalise the speech by bringing to the speakers notice different
recent judgements.

The speaker is calm and composed throughout the speech and tries to
obligingly answer all the questions put forth.

Majorly non-convincing to the judges, yet a benevolent and a firm speaker,

marks her depart, thanking the judges.

Room F

Applicants
Speaker 1

It's post lunch now. The participants seem to be ready to get into the battle,
and the judges seem relaxed enough to decide the fate of this battle.

The first speaker comes to the podium and requested the Jury to directly
proceed to submissions. To which, the jury agreed instantly.

The lady speaker begins her first contention with ease. The Jury questioned
her on the point of sovereignty and pointed a clause in their memorial and
asked her if it is just an arguendo.

The speaker managed to make their case using facts.

The bench throws more questions at the poor speaker, whose confidence has
taken a bigger dip than Americas reputation since Trump.

The clerk showed the judges that only five minutes are left. The speaker
increased her pace and raised issues upon principles of International law.

The speaker rests her case, seemingly not entirely sure what her case was.

Speaker 2

A slow start to the remaining two issues of the pleadings.

A question on basic international law was handled with ease. Upon assertion
by the jury that the client of the present team was also responsible for the
damage in question, the speaker very confidently conceded, saying that the
same is not being denied by the Agent, which was interesting. The bench
turned to the speaker in anticipation, expecting her to explain. But to their
disappointment, she continued with her submissions.

She messes up a basic definition. The modest bench gave her a chance, but
her confidence made her reply with a louder volume, but repeat the wrong
answer. The bench was left smiling.

The speaker then rested her case with the prayer.

Repondents

Speaker 1

The first speaker came upon the floor and begins his contentions in full swing.

The swing seems to have broken pretty soon, as the judges pointed out he
probably shouldnt read out from the memo. The speaker seems confused at
this request. Funny.
He continues his contentions till he is interjected by the jury upon a
differentiation between two terms of International law. He manages to
answer, but is not successful in convincing the bench.

Moving on, he proceeds with the arguments resulting in making a disabled

case for his side.

Honesty is the best policy. The speaker concedes he is not prepared to

answer this question. This guy is lit.

Speaker 2

The second speaker approached the podium to begin his contentions.

With an intention to reclaim the losing battle, the speaker tried to revert the
claims by appellants back to them by saying that the appellants are originally
responsible for the crisis.

This surprised the judges following which they pestered him with questions
on point of facts. The Jury again asked him a question which left him silent for
a couple of minutes. The bench understood his plight and asked him to follow
with his contention.

The counsel impressively came back from the horror of this grilling, and
presented the rest of his part confidently.

Room G

Applicants

Speaker 1

Full stomachs reflect in the energy of both the teams who seem ready to take
on Round 2. Their fervor is manifested into constructive deliberations on the
part of the first speaker. Though he started quite confidently, the cross-
questioning of the judges takes him by surprise. His teammates are also
seem perplexed by the sudden charge of questions. The speaker, after taking
a deep breath, is trying to answer them. There is a constant exchange of
questions and answers which the Agent is taking in his stride.There seems to
be a lack of information on the part of the Applicants, which is leading to
more questioning. The speaker is visibly fazed, unable to respond to the
grilling.

Speaker 2
The judges are asking the speaker to present her case without reading from
the memorandum. While it seems a daunting task in the beginning, the
speaker is taking the challenge, and is moving on with her arguments with
grace. Questions asked by the Bench, are being answered by them only, due
to miscommunication on part of the team.

Thereafter, the speaker is moving on the last issue, which has been further
characterised by her into sub-contentions. The Bench is asking for her to tie
the loose ends of her arguments to her previous contentions.

They are appreciating the research of the team into the technicalities of the
issue, but also voice their concerns that the teams research can
unfortunately not be taken into consideration. Extra time is asked for, in
which their is some sort of a rapid-fire round of questions which the Agent is
answering in a very structured manner.

Repondents

Speaker 1

The Bench is giving 20 seconds to the speaker to outline the main facts of the
case, which she seems to not be able to do. The speaker is being very
respectful towards the Bench, even while being fired with questions. The
speaker is speaking with such fluency that the frequency of questions from
the bench is decreasing, but their intensity is increasing. This fluency is
broken by a consultation between the speaker and her teammates, and the
document that is submitted to the Bench is blatantly disregarded by them
since it does not have any authority.

The Bench starts counting down time, till the speaker runs out of it.

Speaker 2

Speaker 2 approaches the dais, and contrary to common conventions, asks

for permission to go the washroom. Coming back in, hes instantly informed
by the bench to leave the pleasantries, and get straight to his contentions. In
an attempt to cover his arguments in time, the speaker is going too fast,
which is affecting his clarity, as pointed by the Bench. Speaker seems to be
dodging the question that is being asked, and the Bench takes note.

He is presenting quite myriad colours during his speech. While he started off
on an enthusiastic note, judges' grilling is bringing out the blues in his
speech. The speaker requests for extra time, repeatedly but the request is
denied.