Countering Questionable Tactics by Crying Foul
Issue Date
2011Author
Innocenti, Beth
Publisher
American Forensic Association
Type
Article
Article Version
Scholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
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.
Description
This is the author's accepted manuscript, made available with permission of the American Forensic Association.
Collections
Citation
Innocenti, Beth. "Countering Questionable Tactics by Crying Foul." Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2011): 178-88.
Items in KU ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
We want to hear from you! Please share your stories about how Open Access to this item benefits YOU.