This chapter asks what whataboutism and tu quoque mean for argument in world politics. Building on grounded findings, it theorizes the interplay between “lifeworld” and state-promoted “factworlds,” showing how whataboutisms and tu quoques can either clarify norm application or intensify polarisation in the UN Security Council. It distils implications for diplomatic performance—scripted yet theatrical, multi-audience, and looping—and notes patterns from interviews and corpus analysis, including heavier P5 use and greater productivity in closed meetings. A case on Russia links reliance on WAs/TQs to a weakening factworld and isolation. The chapter outlines institutional reform directions and avenues for future research.