Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytruePresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Prevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Raisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytruePresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Prevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Diverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartner

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