Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 21e7b87b236135bdd6bbb1913c2702b9eafc61577a1db11f997f7385f96810ab

# Dirty Tricks: Spotting Logical Fallacies

Working in five teams, participants learn a specific manipulative tactic, draft realistic workplace examples, and review and score another team's examples using an evaluation checklist.

**Time:** 40 minutes. The original source recommends 30 to 45 minutes; structured here as a complete 40-minute workshop plan.
**People:** 10 to 25. Five teams of 2 to 5 people, distributed as evenly as possible across five tables.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Identify and evaluate five common logical fallacies and manipulation tactics used in workplace arguments.
**Use it when:** Use during communication, negotiation, or critical-thinking sessions where participants need to spot faulty logic and manipulative persuasion tactics.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the team is currently experiencing acute, unresolved interpersonal conflict, where drafting manipulative statements could easily be perceived as passive-aggressive personal attacks.

## Materials and tools

- Printed Reference Cards (one copy per person of their table's assigned card, plus full five-card sets for everyone at step 6)
- Checklist for Rating the Examples (one copy per person)
- Blank index cards (one per person)
- Pens (one per person)
- Countdown timer
- Chime or bell

## Before participants arrive

1. Set up five distinct tables or small-group clusters labeled 1 through 5.
2. Place copies of one specific Reference Card at each table (Table 1: Accusing Your Opponent; Table 2: Sliding Down; Table 3: Appeal to Authority; Table 4: Appeal to Tradition; Table 5: Name Calling).
3. Place a stack of blank index cards, pens, and copies of the Checklist for Rating the Examples at each table.

## Say this to open

Arguments in workplace meetings, emails, and proposals often rely on manipulative shortcuts rather than sound evidence. We call these dirty tricks, built on classic logical fallacies. In this exercise, each team will master one specific trick, write an anonymous realistic example, and pass it to another team to evaluate against four clear criteria.

## How to run it

### 1. Introduce fallacies and organize teams (5 minutes)

Explain the concept of dirty tricks and logical fallacies. Divide the group across five tables so each table has between 2 and 5 people. Extra participants are distributed evenly. Each table receives copies of only their assigned Reference Card: Accusing Your Opponent, Sliding Down, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, or Name Calling. State the task and ensure everyone has their card.

### 2. Study assigned tactic (4 minutes)

Participants read their assigned reference card individually. Then, team members discuss the definition and example together to verify they understand the mechanics of the fallacy before writing.

### 3. Draft original examples (6 minutes)

Distribute blank index cards. Working individually and silently, each person writes a realistic workplace example illustrating their team's assigned dirty trick. To keep rating objective and anonymous, instruct everyone to write a random four-digit number in the upper right corner instead of their name. Collect all completed cards at each table into a single stack.

### 4. Rotate tactics and examples (4 minutes)

Hand each table the reference card and the stack of written examples from the preceding table (Table 1 gives to Table 2, Table 2 to Table 3, Table 3 to Table 4, Table 4 to Table 5, Table 5 to Table 1). Give teams two minutes to read the new reference card so they fully grasp the tactic they are about to evaluate.

### 5. Evaluate examples against checklist (8 minutes)

Distribute the Checklist for Rating the Examples. Teams read the received anonymous example cards aloud within their group. Using the four checklist questions (Valid, Authentic, Medium Difficulty, Brief), the team debates and selects the single strongest example that best illustrates the tactic.

### 6. Share best examples and debrief (13 minutes)

Distribute full sets of all five reference cards to every participant. One spokesperson from each team takes one minute to read their chosen top example aloud, revealing the four-digit code so the author can be acknowledged. Use the remaining eight minutes to conduct the debrief discussion on recognizing and countering these fallacies at work.


## Debrief questions

- Which of the five tricks was easiest to identify, and which tends to slip past unnoticed in everyday workplace discussions?
- When you notice someone using an Appeal to Tradition or a Sliding Down argument in a meeting, what is a practical way to redirect the conversation back to evidence?
- How can you audit your own proposals to ensure you are not relying on these shortcuts?

**Finished output:** Five curated, peer-evaluated workplace examples demonstrating each logical fallacy, scored against standard evaluation criteria.

## Remote

Create five breakout rooms corresponding to the five tactics. Share the assigned tactic text via pinned chat or shared slide. Participants type their example into a designated column on a shared digital whiteboard or spreadsheet, tagged only with a four-digit code. For the evaluation step, direct each room to review the column submitted by the preceding group, using the rating checklist to paste a star next to their top choice. Return to the main room for spokespersons to read winning entries and debrief.

## Hybrid

All participants, in-person and online, record their anonymous examples with four-digit codes on a shared digital whiteboard. Assign remote participants together in one or two table cohorts while in-person participants work at physical tables with laptops. During rotation, each cohort reviews another cohort's digital column. Spokespersons present their winning examples on screen with audio routed through the main room system.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may draft fictional workplace scenarios or draw on generalized patterns without revealing actual colleague names or sensitive proprietary matters.
- Any participant may contribute ideas within small-team discussions or pass on serving as the reading spokesperson during the whole-room sharing.

## If the session gets stuck

**A participant names real colleagues or specific sensitive company disputes on their card.**

Remind everyone during the briefing that all scenarios must use fictional names and generic job roles so the focus remains on the logical structure rather than personal grievances.

**A team is split between two strong examples during the evaluation step.**

Ask them to score each card from 1 to 3 on each of the four checklist criteria; the card with the higher total score wins.


## Terms used here

- Textra Game: A training game framework developed by Thiagi that uses written text handouts as the engine for interactive peer analysis.
- Logical Fallacy: A flaw in reasoning that undermines the logical validity of an argument while appearing superficially persuasive.

## Participant material: Reference Cards: Five Dirty Tricks

Card 1: Accusing Your Opponent
Instead of arguing about facts and ideas, the manipulator attacks the character and behaviors of the other person. This attack may have nothing to do with the key points under consideration.
Example: I know that you have nominated Erich to manage the project. But do you know that he recently got divorced? His wife accused him of mental cruelty. And do you remember the HR people investigating sexual harassment complaints against him?

Card 2: Sliding Down
The manipulator suggests that the initial activity will produce a chain reaction that will eventually lead to a great disaster. The series of cause-effect relationships implied by the statements is logical only in the mind of the manipulator.
Example: I notice that you were late in turning in your travel expenses. This is very irresponsible and it will lead you to committing more serious acts of irresponsibility. Before you know it, you may delay your project expense reports and hold up the essential purchase of supplies and equipment. Who knows where else this will go? Your team members will act as irresponsible as you and the whole department may be closed down.

Card 3: Appeal to Authority
The manipulator uses statements and testimonials from famous people to support an idea or recommendation. The people who are making the statements may not have special expertise in the technical area.
Example: At the recent sales conference, I attended a session that presented a case study on the use of the contact-management software that I am recommending. You should have heard the glowing testimonials from important leaders. Famous celebrities claim that you can significantly increase sales by 30 percent in just six months! We should definitely switch over to this system.

Card 4: Appeal to Tradition
The manipulator provides proof for inaction by emphasizing that previous ways have stood the test of time. Social and organizational customs are invoked to support resistance to any change.
Example: There's nothing wrong with the company's educational assistance policy that encourages employees to quit their job if they want to enroll in university courses. It does not matter that some other companies give tuition assistance and assure job promotions to graduating employees. That's not the way we have been doing things here and I see no reason to change our policies and procedures.

Card 5: Name Calling
In this name-calling and mud-slinging approach, the manipulator ignores logical arguments and insinuates that the opponent is an evil person who will do terrible things.
Example: Our CEO is in favor of the merger because he is a greedy and power-hungry egotist. He wants to earn a big bonus and consolidate his position with the stockholders. He will not hesitate to fire a lot of employees to exploit the situation.

## Participant material: Checklist for Rating the Examples

Our goal is to select an example that can be used for explaining a specific dirty trick.
1. Valid? Does the example clearly illustrate the critical features of the specific dirty trick for manipulating people into jumping to illogical conclusions?
2. Authentic? Does the example portray a realistic situation in your workplace?
3. Medium level of difficulty? Does the example avoid being too obvious or too subtle?
4. Brief? Is the example written in a concise and clear fashion?

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in Thiagi GameLetter (September 2012), published by The Thiagi Group, authored by Sivasailam (Thiagi) Thiagarajan.

The original newsletter issue (TGL September 2012) described the textra game 'Dirty Tricks'. We retained the original five fallacies, text definitions, workplace examples, rating checklist, and the peer rotation mechanic. The source specified a minimum of 15 participants (teams of 3 to 7). We set the group range to 10 to 25 (teams of 2 to 5) so small workshop cohorts can still run all five tactics with pair discussions while preserving team evaluation quality. We standardized the handout terminology to 'Checklist for Rating the Examples' and extended the total duration to 40 minutes to give the debrief adequate time.

[The Thiagi Group](http://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/september2012.html)

[The Thiagi Group](https://thiagi.net/archive/www/pfp/IE4H/september2012.html)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/tgl-september-2012/