| dc.contributor.author | Innocenti, Beth | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-11-02T15:10:12Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-11-02T15:10:12Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Innocenti, Beth. "Countering Questionable Tactics by Crying Foul." Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2011): 178-88. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1808/8329 | |
| dc.description | This is the author's accepted manuscript, made available with permission of the American Forensic Association. | |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | |
| dc.publisher | American Forensic Association | |
| dc.subject | Crying Foul | |
| dc.subject | Normative Pragmatics | |
| dc.subject | Fallacies | |
| dc.subject | Questionable Tactics | |
| dc.subject | Pragmatic Argumentation Theories | |
| dc.title | Countering Questionable Tactics by Crying Foul | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| kusw.kuauthor | Innocenti, Beth | |
| kusw.kudepartment | Communication Studies | |
| kusw.oastatus | fullparticipation | |
| kusw.oaversion | Scholarly/refereed, author accepted manuscript | |
| kusw.oapolicy | This item meets KU Open Access policy criteria. | |
| dc.rights.accessrights | openAccess | |
