Presented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytruePrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Claim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Expressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytruePrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictPre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Claim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Presented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partner

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. Expressed appreciation for skepticism or dissenting view
  3. Reasons and/or evidence offered was not even plausibly true
  4. Prevented conversation partner from offering arguments or responses to arguments by interrupting and/or dominating the conversation
  5. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by expressing moral outrage
  6. Adopted a new position in response to criticism (i.e., changed one’s mind)
  7. Offered reasons that are not accessible to all citizens within a Democracy
  8. Attempted to end conversation by expressing a desire to avoid conflict
  9. Pre-emptively acknowledged dissenting view
  10. Communicated with the audience, rather than their conversation partner
  11. Admitted evidence and/or reasoning was mistaken
  12. Worked to identify and introduce the best reasons to support their conversation partner’s claims
  13. Identified diversions and worked to refocus the exchange on the relevant reasons
  14. Attempted to manipulate by offering evidence that he or she knew was wrong or distorted*
  15. Claim defended did not follow from the reasons and/or evidence offered to support the claim
  16. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by changing the subject
  17. Spoke to conversation partner as if they were a child in need of education
  18. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by attacking the character of the conversation partner
  19. Raised questions about specific claims offered by conversation partner
  20. Expressed a willingness to change one’s mind
  21. Presented and responded to a distorted version of conversation partner’s argument (straw man)
  22. Presented and responded to the weakest of the conversation partner’s arguments (weak man)
  23. Asked for clarification or confirmation to make sure argument was accurately understood
  24. Displayed an ability to listen by accurately summarizing the claims of their conversation partner
  25. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by trying to provoke emotional responses from their conversation partner