College debaters who go to law school are often surprised by the differences between the processes that take place in the court of reason and the process that takes place in the court of law. The court of reason relies mainly on authoritative testimony, while the court of law relies on direct evidence. Evidence in the court of reason is either unmediated (direct) or mediated, while all the evidence in the court of law is mediated by the judge. Thus, evidential theory in the court of law involves issues of admissability, whereas evidential theory in the court of reason calls on the receivers to evaluate the evidence themselves. Receivers in both courts process and evaluate evidence in order to render decision making judgments, but receivers in the court of reason are self-selected while receivers in the court of law are summoned, evaluated, and selected. Standards of performance vary in the court of reason according to ability and circumstances, while continuing efforts are made in the court of law to maintain high performance standards. Finally, receivers in the court of reason make a deliberative judgment, a policy decision directed toward the future; receivers in the court of law make both deliberative and forensic judgments, sometimes deciding whether an act occurred in the past, and sometimes making policy decisions for the future. (JL)