Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Spoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Spoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claims

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