Location

University of Windsor

Document Type

Paper

Start Date

3-6-2009 9:00 AM

End Date

6-6-2009 5:00 PM

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.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Response to Submission

Chris Campolo, Commentary on Innocenti

Reader's Reactions

Chris Campolo, Commentary on Innocenti (June 2009)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
Jun 3rd, 9:00 AM Jun 6th, 5:00 PM

Crying Foul to Counter Questionable Tactics

University of Windsor

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.