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