Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Attempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Attempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Prevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Attempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Attempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Prevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claims

Presidential Debate Disagreement Bingo - Call List

(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
  1. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by expressing moral outrage
  2. Admitted evidence and/or reasoning was mistaken
  3. Presented and responded to an argument their conversation partner never made (hollow man)
  4. Attempted to end conversation by expressing a desire to avoid conflict
  5. Claim defended did not follow from the reasons and/or evidence offered to support the claim
  6. Presented and responded to the weakest of the conversation partner’s arguments (weak man)
  7. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by changing the subject
  8. Expressed appreciation for skepticism or dissenting view
  9. Communicated with the audience, rather than their conversation partner
  10. Identified diversions and worked to refocus the exchange on the relevant reasons
  11. Asked for clarification or confirmation to make sure argument was accurately understood
  12. Reasons and/or evidence offered was not even plausibly true
  13. Spoke to conversation partner as if they were a child in need of education
  14. Presented and responded to a distorted version of conversation partner’s argument (straw man)
  15. Attempted to manipulate by offering evidence that he or she knew was wrong or distorted*
  16. Prevented conversation partner from offering arguments or responses to arguments by interrupting and/or dominating the conversation
  17. Expressed a willingness to change one’s mind
  18. Displayed an ability to listen by accurately summarizing the claims of their conversation partner
  19. Offered reasons that are not accessible to all citizens within a Democracy
  20. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by attacking the character of the conversation partner
  21. Pre-emptively acknowledged dissenting view
  22. Adopted a new position in response to criticism (i.e., changed one’s mind)
  23. Raised questions about specific claims offered by conversation partner
  24. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by trying to provoke emotional responses from their conversation partner
  25. Worked to identify and introduce the best reasons to support their conversation partner’s claims