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