Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Pre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Expressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Spoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Admittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Pre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Expressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Spoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Admittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflict

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