Countering Questionable Tactics by Crying Foul

This is the author's accepted manuscript, made available with permission of the American Forensic Association.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