Presented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Identifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Attempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Identifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Attempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversation

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