(Print) Use this randomly generated list as your call list when playing the game. There is no need to say the BINGO column name. Place some kind of mark (like an X, a checkmark, a dot, tally mark, etc) on each cell as you announce it, to keep track. You can also cut out each item, place them in a bag and pull words from the bag.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Asked for clarification or confirmation to make sure argument was accurately understood
Worked to identify and introduce the best reasons to support their conversation partner’s claims
Prevented conversation partner from offering arguments or responses to arguments by interrupting and/or dominating the conversation
Raised questions about specific claims offered by conversation partner
Expressed a willingness to change one’s mind
Displayed an ability to listen by accurately summarizing the claims of their conversation partner
Expressed appreciation for skepticism or dissenting view
Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by expressing moral outrage
Presented and responded to a distorted version of conversation partner’s argument (straw man)
Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by changing the subject
Reasons and/or evidence offered was not even plausibly true
Attempted to manipulate by offering evidence that he or she knew was wrong or distorted*
Presented and responded to an argument their conversation partner never made (hollow man)
Admitted evidence and/or reasoning was mistaken
Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by trying to provoke emotional responses from their conversation partner
Spoke to conversation partner as if they were a child in need of education
Offered reasons that are not accessible to all citizens within a Democracy
Identified diversions and worked to refocus the exchange on the relevant reasons
Attempted to end conversation by expressing a desire to avoid conflict
Adopted a new position in response to criticism (i.e., changed one’s mind)
Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by attacking the character of the conversation partner
Claim defended did not follow from the reasons and/or evidence offered to support the claim
Communicated with the audience, rather than their conversation partner
Presented and responded to the weakest of the conversation partner’s arguments (weak man)
