Worked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Communicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Communicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrage

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