Offeredreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Attempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytruePresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Communicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Pre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerWorked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerDisplayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Attempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Reasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytruePresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outrageClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsExpressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Communicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Pre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerWorked 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. Offered reasons that are not accessible to all citizens within a Democracy
  2. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by trying to provoke emotional responses from their conversation partner
  3. Displayed an ability to listen by accurately summarizing the claims of their conversation partner
  4. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by changing the subject
  5. Spoke to conversation partner as if they were a child in need of education
  6. Presented and responded to an argument their conversation partner never made (hollow man)
  7. Attempted to end conversation by expressing a desire to avoid conflict
  8. Prevented conversation partner from offering arguments or responses to arguments by interrupting and/or dominating the conversation
  9. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by attacking the character of the conversation partner
  10. Presented and responded to a distorted version of conversation partner’s argument (straw man)
  11. Reasons and/or evidence offered was not even plausibly true
  12. Presented and responded to the weakest of the conversation partner’s arguments (weak man)
  13. Diverted attention from the quality of the reasons by expressing moral outrage
  14. Claim defended did not follow from the reasons and/or evidence offered to support the claim
  15. Identified diversions and worked to refocus the exchange on the relevant reasons
  16. Expressed a willingness to change one’s mind
  17. Expressed appreciation for skepticism or dissenting view
  18. Adopted a new position in response to criticism (i.e., changed one’s mind)
  19. Communicated with the audience, rather than their conversation partner
  20. Admitted evidence and/or reasoning was mistaken
  21. Asked for clarification or confirmation to make sure argument was accurately understood
  22. Attempted to manipulate by offering evidence that he or she knew was wrong or distorted*
  23. Pre-emptively acknowledged dissenting view
  24. Raised questions about specific claims offered by conversation partner
  25. Worked to identify and introduce the best reasons to support their conversation partner’s claims