How do crying foul strategies, such as saying opponents are trying to "terrify" into a decision, pressure opponents to argue well? I submit that crying foul strategies work by making a norm determinate, and by making manifest the badness of the tactic and that the speaker is exercising forbearance. I explain why they generate pressure to repair or abandon questionable tactics, particularly when the norms they bring to bear in a situation converge with those of a broader political culture.
This is the author's accepted manuscript, made available with permission of the American Forensic Association.
The University of Kansas prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin, age, ancestry, disability, status as a veteran, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, gender identity, gender expression and genetic information in the University’s programs and activities. The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the non-discrimination policies: Director of the Office of Institutional Opportunity and Access, IOA@ku.edu, 1246 W. Campus Road, Room 153A, Lawrence, KS, 66045, (785)864-6414, 711 TTY.