Asked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outragePresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Worked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Expressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Pre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrueAsked forclarification orconfirmation tomake sureargument wasaccuratelyunderstoodExpressedappreciationfor skepticismor dissentingviewClaim defendeddid not follow fromthe reasonsand/or evidenceoffered to supportthe claimDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons byattacking thecharacter of theconversationpartnerIdentifieddiversions andworked to refocusthe exchange onthe relevantreasonsRaisedquestions aboutspecific claimsoffered byconversationpartnerAttempted toendconversation byexpressing adesire to avoidconflictAdopted a newposition inresponse tocriticism (i.e.,changed one’smind)Divertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons bychanging thesubjectSpoke toconversationpartner as ifthey were achild in need ofeducationDivertedattention fromthe quality ofthe reasons byexpressingmoral outragePresented andresponded to theweakest of theconversationpartner’sarguments (weakman)Worked to identifyand introduce thebest reasons tosupport theirconversationpartner’s claimsAttempted tomanipulate byoffering evidencethat he or sheknew was wrongor distorted*Expressed awillingnessto changeone’s mindOfferedreasons thatare notaccessible to allcitizens within aDemocracyPresented andresponded to adistorted versionof conversationpartner’sargument (strawman)Displayed anability to listen byaccuratelysummarizing theclaims of theirconversationpartnerCommunicatedwith theaudience,rather than theirconversationpartnerAdmittedevidenceand/orreasoning wasmistakenPresented andresponded to anargument theirconversationpartner nevermade (hollowman)Pre-emptivelyacknowledgeddissentingviewPrevented conversationpartner from offeringarguments orresponses toarguments byinterrupting and/ordominating theconversationDiverted attentionfrom the quality ofthe reasons by tryingto provoke emotionalresponses from theirconversation partnerReasons and/orevidenceoffered was noteven plausiblytrue

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