What's up. On this page are the three cases I read at the TOC. There were one or two other cases that I read at some point on the topic, but they weren't particularly good so I don't think there's much educational utility to posting them. If for whatever reason you're really interested in semi-coherent cases about Paul Ricoeur or Hegel, feel free to email me at erikmbaker@comcast.net. The typical caveat about not just taking these cards and running the arguments without understanding them applies, but the egomaniacal part of me thinks that this is more true of these cases than some others on this wiki. Camus never considered himself a philosopher and he uses a lot of highly literary language even in his nonfiction works (which both of the Camus cases were cut from), which means that arguments that are actually pretty sound and make a lot of sense can seem less justified than they actually are when you are incapable of re-articulating the warrants in these cards in different language in rebuttals or c-x. Also, a lot of the responses that first come to mind (and that a lot of opponents made) are pretty devastating unless you know enough about the philosophy to be able to quickly articulate why seemingly responsive args (e.g. God exists) are not responsive. Finally, both of the Camus books the cases are cut from are actually really interesting and well-written and I do encourage you to read them.


This was the AC I ran every round except for round 4. I actually never ran this version but I don't have the one I did run saved, so this is close enough. The only real difference is that the super long theory arg at the beginning of the case was prepped for octas but I negated and lost so it was never run (but it's a sweet arg so I'm still posting it here), and there was a big analytic paragraph after Camus 5 that had a spike to discourse and a few presumption args.

(The name makes sense because I wrote 2 other ACs that punned on the title of the first two books in the series) This is an AC based on the work of Henri Bergson. I ran this round 4 v. Palo Alto TC


I read this NC in every neg round. Against Weisberg round 5 and in octas I also read a card that I ever-so-slightly mistagged to say that meta-ethical justification was bad, but because mistagging is bad I don't want to post it here.

I think that's it. Any questions or whatever, just shoot me an email.