Presented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Identifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Identifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Raisedquestions 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 an argument their conversation partner never made (hollow man)
  2. Identified diversions and worked to refocus the exchange on the relevant reasons
  3. Expressed a willingness to change one’s mind
  4. Adopted a new position in response to criticism (i.e., changed one’s mind)
  5. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by expressing moral outrage
  6. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by changing the subject
  7. Offered reasons that are not accessible to all citizens within a Democracy
  8. Attempted to manipulate by offering evidence that he or she knew was wrong or distorted*
  9. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by attacking the character of the conversation partner
  10. Prevented conversation partner from offering arguments or responses to arguments by interrupting and/or dominating the conversation
  11. Worked to identify and introduce the best reasons to support their conversation partner’s claims
  12. Admitted evidence and/or reasoning was mistaken
  13. Reasons and/or evidence offered was not even plausibly true
  14. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by trying to provoke emotional responses from their conversation partner
  15. Claim defended did not follow from the reasons and/or evidence offered to support the claim
  16. Communicated with the audience, rather than their conversation partner
  17. Asked for clarification or confirmation to make sure argument was accurately understood
  18. Displayed an ability to listen by accurately summarizing the claims of their conversation partner
  19. Spoke to conversation partner as if they were a child in need of education
  20. Attempted to end conversation by expressing a desire to avoid conflict
  21. Presented and responded to the weakest of the conversation partner’s arguments (weak man)
  22. Expressed appreciation for skepticism or dissenting view
  23. Pre-emptively acknowledged dissenting view
  24. Presented and responded to a distorted version of conversation partner’s argument (straw man)
  25. Raised questions about specific claims offered by conversation partner