The four-case argument
Two main routes are available for responding to the manipulation argument. Rejecting the manipulation premise (McKenna (2008) dubs this move the hard-line reply) requires the compatibilist to deny that the manipulation in question really is responsibility-undermining. Compatibilists taking this tactic are biting a bullet and incur a dialectical burden to combat the intuition that the manipulation in question is intuitively responsibility-undermining. Prominent defenders of the hard-line reply include Frankfurt (2002) and McKenna (2008).