Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outragePresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Worked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Attempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Admittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outragePresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Worked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Attempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Admittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartner

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