Building a moot

full of snakes and alligators might be rather difficult. 
I am of course referring to the allegation made by some of the rather more irresponsible sections of the media. This was that the President of the United States wanted to build a moat along the Mexican border filled with snakes and alligators - and the President's response where he used "moot" rather than "moat".
Moots are actually something you do in law school - they are legal debates.
Moots were compulsory when I was in law school and I assume they still are. They are vital for anyone who wants to be a barrister. You have to be able to think on your feet. You need to know the case law, how it is applied, how you can apply it and how it might not apply - and much more.
I did Moots I as required. It was fairly simple. We had to get up in front of one of the local magistrates and plead a case we had been given.  We were not permitted to refer to specific cases - but it didn't stop the magistrates from asking if we were aware of them!
Moots II was a little more complex. People worked together in pairs.  There was a written and a spoken component.
And then, in my third year, one of the staff said to me,
    "Cat, we're putting up a team for the Jessup. Would you like to be involved?"
Jessup? It turned out to be an international competition debating international law. Would I like to be involved? It meant being around all summer.  I had never done any serious debating - just the occasional debate at school. 
There was no way I was going to debate at that level. But it turned out there were other skills needed - research skills and writing skills. Remember what I said recently about the subject "Legal Writing and Research"?  The team needed those skills.
The students involved are given a problem involving international law across more than one country. They have to prepare arguments as Applicants and Respondents and as if they were appearing before the International Court of Justice. They have to prepare two sets of written pleadings (known as "memorials") and two forty-five minute oral presentations - one each for either side of the case. It is, rightly, challenging.  
No, they didn't expect me to do the actual debating. After a quick trip home for Christmas I was set to work on the research. I researched and researched - and I managed to learn a lot that summer.
The Jessup ends up being about a lot more than the legal arguments involved. It means working with other people, listening to them, responding to their ideas, raising your own. All the time you need to keep the problem in mind. When writing the memorial for the Applicant you need to be convinced you are going to win. When writing the memorial for the Respondent you need to be equally convinced you are going to win. You can learn a lot about other people that way.
We won the national event that year - but not, like a previous team, the international event. It is the only time in my life that I am likely to attend the High Court - where the finals are held. Every time I enter a court here I remember that experience and the way I imagined the immense responsibility of arguing an actual case.
And now will I also think of a moot surrounded by snakes and alligators? There are so many traps in doing that sort of thing I might.