Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Communicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Communicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partner

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