Crying Foul to Counter Questionable Tactics

Abstract

How do crying foul strategies, such as accusing an opponent of trying to "terrify" into a decision, pressure arguers to argue well? I submit that they work by (1) making a norm determinate and (2) making manifest the badness of the tactic. I explain why they generate pressure to repair or abandon questionable tactics, particularly when the norms converge with those of a broader political culture.