input
stringlengths 2.25k
8.96k
| output
listlengths 1
3
| id
stringlengths 40
40
|
|---|---|---|
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Lots of people are raised to believe that you can't defend yourself against a woman
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-831a61e2724b4de094d0aa30ad72a404 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: > I bet the FBI has some information we could use. Keep in mind the FBI lumps whites and Latinos into the same category. I wonder how the statistics would look otherwise...
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-c4d4de119745414c862c78a9266048bd |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: You wish the problem wasn't race but it is. Look at the corruption index by country, what pattern emerges at the top and bottom?
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-7f5213f5b636434f8b6d2f7db327fc07 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Toss that shit in the break room microwave and get some day's off work.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-598f81fbec414f5996fad235277ab3d3 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: So he was pre mad he was gonna get canned for doing this was his motive You should work for the FBI
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4c2fcaea5d4b42c9b4661d59b92a5e26 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Can't be. He never mentioned his wife's a doctor and claimed a cluster of undifferentiated cells is a toddler.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-69aef3d8954e4f6b95bc8b81ffaebcb2 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I got muted by the subreddit r/gallowboob after trying to enter. Simply Because I didn't worship GallowBoob, they rejected my entry into the sub, despite it stating that it's for discussion of wether he's good or bad. I told them about the unfair bannings, and they said "They do it to themselves by Posting Dumb Shit" This prompted a snarky comeback from me, and then they muted me. I get what you guys mean when you say gallowboob is a karma-whore, and abuses his mod stat. You should instead go down to r/dankmemes. He call the mods gay on an hourly basis there.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-567ad6080f424a23ae9c5f43b1c41696 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Makes sense to me, people who do this shit listen to their sex drive more than anything and aren't the type to be stable parents anyways
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-f6a6cf570ebe48b5a62c7cbc63679658 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Break your fucking necks, lost generation 90's wanna be
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-a8fcb7846a7d4c81af870d7df2f47280 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: This is especially silly because last time I looked, Asians have been very successful at serving their cuisines in the West for a very long time. So it's not like you can claim this one white guy suddenly stole the idea, he just wants to get in on the action. What's wrong with that?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-d010d0abd55c4df2957540da9e797f4e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Fuck off nazi, we're trying to have a conversation here. You're not subtle.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-318e245c446a40c39a23636eba95c79f |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Yes, they is.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-d99980c9176d4330835c701a62dffd01 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: No lie here friend.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-d406c3e0832147e3903aaa7c9ad2287e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Male feminists bro they believe the dumbest shit
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-65adc8675def4f35a9300f6e3c65a696 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: > First of all, one, "piracy helps me try games before I buy" is one, if not the biggest argument for piracy. > Do games nowadays do demos still? Should that be enough to appease those kinds of people people in a legal manner? Edit: Not Betas - I mean post-launch demos
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-71acdf11121a430b9446de9b133e802a |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: subreddit dedicated to degenerate moderated by degenerates shock of the century
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-86c4362f7a1a4ba8843447a5e38f5842 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: >Fawltly Towers Never heard of it don't care >Extras Never heard of it don't care >Black mirror Twilight Zone for pretentious fagggots >Monty Python That's good I'll give you that. They're honorary burgers >Blackadder That's clones or some shit. Sounds boring >The Crown The Windsors are an illegitmate monarchy
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-c08eeb6ec80f4d53bda2d5c10f68de41 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: The funniest part is that staunch feminists get off to degradation, and love to fuck hardo trump supporters
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-cf9e706a37bf4363bcb7cd250362a4c3 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Hate to burst your bubble, but I have a great job, own my own home, have a brand new $63k vehicle, two kids, etc etc etc...basically I'm a Chad. That said, I never said you said a fucking thing. I said that the OP made a conditional offer, and that her rejecting the condition is fine, as is his withdrawl of the offer based on her rejection of her condition. Think of it like this: I don't have a car, but I have money. You have a car, but no money. I offer dinner based on the condition that you drive, and you say that you won't drive us to dinner. You think I'm still gonna buy you dinner? FOH.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-9f3eb222ce7544bf8748f83bebcc2c26 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: The blog posts speak for themselves better than anything I could ever write, so here are a bunch of excerpts without commentary: [*"The brain size of the World's most successful woman"*]([Link] >I have heard Oprah state on her show that she has to have her hats custom made because her head measures 25.25 inches around, a cranium so large that two wigs had to be sewn together to fit her for her Oscar nominated performance in *The Color Purple*. This equates to 641.4 mm. [...] Assuming this sample is roughly representative of adult female U.S. crania, Oprah's head perimeter is 6.3 SD above the mean of American women. [*"Independent confirmation of Oprah's head size"*] >The late Gene Siskel went hat shopping with Oprah and the salesman said Oprah's was the largest head he'd ever seen. Using the late J.P. Rushton's idea of using the formula for calculating the volume of a hemisphere (V = circumfence\^3 / 118.4) Oprah would have a cranial capacity of 2229 cm\^3... [*"Brain size & ethnic genetic interests at 70th annual Tony Awards"*] >I spent Sunday evening trying to watch anything other than the news and I stumbled upon the 70th annual Tony Awards. Generally speaking, high IQ people tend to be fans of the arts, so it came as no surprise to see arguably the biggest brained and most successful woman on the planet, multi-billionaire Oprah, dominating the event. [*"IQ & fighting back against racism"*] >Oprah's 2029 cc cranial capacity gave her the IQ to handle racists with style. When a skinhead called her a monkey and then tried to change the subject, Oprah grabbed him by the arm and said '"I want to talk about the *monkey business*". This showed lateral thinking because they were literally talking about monkeys... [*"Big brained Oprah triples the value of Weight Watchers stock; could make $100 million in 36 hours"*]([Link] >With a cranial capacity of perhaps 2,029 cm\^3, Oprah has just adapted her situation to her advantage, by buying a 10% share in Weight Watchers, and watching the stock roughly triple in a few days, making her potentially $100 million richer in only 36 hours. [*"Big Brained Oprah tried to stop the war with Iraq"*] >While no human in history has had a deviation IQ much beyond 200, Oprah's 2,029 cc estimated brain size is arguably around what you would statistically expect from a 400 IQ being, and so was the wisdom she displayed in the run-up to the war in Iraq. [...] It seems marvelously symbolic that Oprah, arguably the biggest brained member of America's elite ultimately passed that test with such flying colours, and got on the right side of history. [*"Getting rich off cold winter genes"*] >...one day Oprah's enormous brain size seemed to allow her the higher level cognitive ability that transcended cognitive abilities themselves: Meta cognition; self-awareness [...] How did Oprah display self-awareness? Martha Stewart began showing Oprah a very efficient way to maneuver a bed sheet, and asked Oprah to grap one corner of the bed sheet. Sensing she didn't have the spatial ability to perform the task competently and not wanting to look foolish in front of millions of TV viewers, Oprah was forced to adapt. Instead of grabbing the corner of the sheet, Oprah spontaneously ran to the audience to grab a Martha Stewart fan. [*"Only Ashkenazi Jews were smart enough to compete with Oprah"*]>As a compassionate social Darwinist, I watched in great fascination as arguably the biggest brained member of both her race and her gender, emerged as the World's richest black and the World's most influential woman. [...] It seemed to me her huge brain size was giving her an ability to come up with witty comments, and down-home folksy wisdom that kept the audience entertained. [...] With a cranial capacity almost as stratospheric as Oprah's, Rosie [O'Donnell] had the smarts to become the only gentile in syndicated talk show history to almost beat Oprah in the ratings [*"Has any self-made woman or black in history EVER been the most powerful person on Earth?"*] >The only self-made woman and the only black who has come close to being the most powerful person on Earth has been Oprah, who for years reigned as the billionaire Queen of all Media and kingmaker to Obama's presidency, but she was born with a freakishly large brain size which helped make her especially smart. [...] Had her IQ been even higher still (150 instead of 140), she might have made the leap from Presidential king maker to President. [*"How Oprah cured my homophobia"*] >...to hear the World's most influential woman give [a political opinion] that was so succinct, loud, powerful and graphic, and on behalf of an oppressed minority other than her own, just brought the house down. In that moment, my homophobia was cured. [...] Rather than trying to defend an awkward argument, Oprah had the cognitive adaptability to shift gears completely, by saying "I wasn't trying to absurd, sir" [...] Big brained Oprah then cleverly used her power which he did not have, by cutting to commercial break. [*"Big brained black billionaire"*]= >A thousand years from now, when no one even knows who Oprah was, anthropologists might dig through the soil and discover a skeleton with a colossal cranial capacity and assume it belonged to someone extremely intelligent. They'll think it must have belong to some rare super human, perhaps a more evolved species. They might then discover the remains of her massive brick mansion and realize her intelligence allowed her to rule over the other humans of her time. [*"Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful...beautiful brain"*] >But the ultimate brain scan art would be if Oprah posed intimately with other luminaries, since Oprah's arguably both the biggest brained member of both her race and her gender and the most successful member of both her race and her gender. The MRI scan could be displayed in the Oprah Winfrey wing of the **Smithsonian's** new National Museum of African American History and Culture.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-0359348fa68743939138516a1853db97 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It's an ideology in which they believe men all consciously created a social system made to keep women at the bottom.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-bc1a352471604c14b08d1a932702bc65 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: No jacket = misogynist
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a55452941091495eb7166a2238a72fa1 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Jews often have weird faces due to their genetic bottleneck and middle-eastern admixture.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-ed9ddd53246141a6b54c26a6f1e7abc7 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Jerk
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-79f6fa2704554b438368d53acab12e17 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Lol cant handle his arguments so might as well attack his appearance. Straight out of the middle school playbook
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-0edb0754d77f4c15b7852b6a00d82aee |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Men and "women" you mean?
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-0f3485bcd70e4188bd9b5ad34e28616b |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: But being trans I mostly discomfort. Its waking up in the morning and not wanting to look into the mirror because you don't want to throw up. Or not taking baths because you don't to see yourself naked. Hating your body functions. Having small panic attacks every time you have to use a public bathroom because you don't don't if you pass enough. It's just discomfort. Fuck you
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-04d6ecfbf1404cf587592ff4c337caa2 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: *user was banned for this comment*
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a62016e911c4404ca86ab3e99e8ad3dd |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: YES :)
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-5277f1de777f4966a7f8d2503745923c |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Packing 3 din 3 khurak Call kare zero gyara pachees therepan pachees therapan pachees therepan
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-2d0c9ea5609245f8a6f68e4a6d3ecb29 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: > I'm expecting a voltron tier uprising if Hori ever doesn't have Deku end up with Ochako in the end Implying there won't be a huge uprising if Deku _does_ end up with Ochako. tododeku is one of the biggest ships in the fandom and tododeku fans tend to also be kiribaku fans, who unironically think their ship should be canon.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8fe709e95b7b4ce1b1fe5b20716de59c |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: You can probably take the test tonight tbh. 10-12 hours won't make that much of a difference.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-9e9e440ab3e6457394cbdca6f45230b4 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Thank you for taking the time to comment!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-9611fa82eced45a28b3bae093af178e8 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I'll have to check the rule book, but I believe under article 72, section 14, if you're white, or partially white, then yes.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-625b7537f83641b7a9208bf9ce8f8e26 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I mean he tried blaming white people for it and was willing to put two innocent white people in prison if you think about it. So yea this has todo with white people too. The Jussie thing is so horrid it crosses that racial line. Horrid repercussions for all.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-331e77300fd14887bde8382c81729f05 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Imagine thinking 21 Savage is an artist or human being worthy of respect
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-106f2552fd524453b6b52957e0a3e494 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Fucking thank jeebus longpostbot is back. I thought you left for good last week bby. You always know just what to say
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8dcae94c85154ce88ecdf051d0284e2a |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I would be very surprised if the user base of CTH is less then 80% high school kids. LSC as well.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-3c823f957377405f88394d5951e190c1 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: disregarding all of the rule 7 and that stuff and all of the probally toxic people that visit here on the other side. virtue signaling is part of what is making gays seem diffrent. The goal shouldnt be to make gays or blacks or whatever be the one in the moral high ground. It should be seeing them as equals. Saying that they are above white people does a similar damage to that goal then saying they are below. Obviously saying they are below is more toxic, but still
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-166cb071201641e398e7aa01537afe06 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It's not saying that lol
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-71b8881e665d42fbaae4b93996ccb932 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Not exactly a hate crime hoax, and nothing about this indicates a political leaning or motive.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-44256d8f80ff4c4b8f0d1f0a404b5534 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sure, but not everywhere does. Romanian guy I know found English weather very strange, said you could experience all four seasons in a day.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-e4a33a6a6d27478a8c7a5e5b7e149ec6 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It's a low bar and for some reason they're playing limbo.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f22d32dea6224893aea1b7547c44134e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Local Chicago reporter tracked down surveillance video of the Osundairo's buying supplies before "attack"
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4785084506414441aaf423802e2a5978 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I'm just waiting for the new reddit to come along. If it does. A site like reddit was 5-8 years ago. All the new ones that pop up just seem to be far right echo Chambers.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f6134e83633f471b8e6138bac2d4e845 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Couldn't post the mod sticky because I commented in it before. Oda has had both positive and negative portrayals of trans or queer characters, and this most recent one was a short reveal that spawned a lot of negativity towards the lgbt community.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-04f1bf79c1f142c2991eacd74beb2578 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It's not but that's an opinion. The rest are all pure trash.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f32d918be7a74a4fb21ec0e644f1653d |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Just do it with bicycles.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-c132c076a78c42caa414f10e09478c21 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: >Thank God for Muslims r/BrandNewSentence
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-2dd532545aa041b88f8265d728e26726 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It's a very different scene in the kink spaces - probably because those people actually would like to live it in the real world, and there you simply cannot get away from the fact that everyone is an adult. It's still super weird, but without this aggressively pedo creepy vibe.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-f9f86bbe659249218d38b647648811f5 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Aboriginals is my best (((guess)))
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-156e5f97119346fa8acbbafb3fd5ed4d |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Well, if someone was being isolated that's bound to cause a reaction, isolating one from social supports can be quite detrimental.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-9ba3899948294f029c881cb8fa61a061 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: If the sexes were reversed the post would already have 16K upvotes. Sad world we live in
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-cda09c32158f4e8ab1badb1b5736de10 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Even when he knows he might have to do it!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-ed92fef014794d409431acf6f5db2a1a |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Left Winger gets **DESTROYED** by 4chan meme
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-6afd9656addf4218aa14aaa23cc10ab2 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It's based on the same scientific principle, but Cimexa is man-made and much more potent. When my apartment caught a small infestation, I threw out my box spring (where they were nesting), ran my clothes through the dryer a few times, and dusted that Cimexa stuff absolutely everywhere. I was constantly freaking out for months at random itches when I was in bed thinking they'd came back, because it's what the internet conditioned me to expect, but I never found another one ever again.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-327722f2a12a45f588399fd716655358 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: >Don't look at what others have to make sure you have more, look to make sure they have enough. This is said by the same people that constantly bitch and moan about income and wealth inequality, instead of actual poverty. Margaret Thatcher was right when she said that leftists would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich would be less rich. It was true back then and it is still true today.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-ba592612f9f246f1baee9b29255a58f4 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Moot point if you've painted your living room with glial cells and cerebrospinal fluid. I'm more of the retrovirus-causes-reanimation/loss-of-cognitive-function vs "they crawl up out of the ground for no fucking reason" crowd, but like I said, pupper's gonna eat well. She won't even recognize me without a head.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-45cdd0255dd04ea49ed3e4b426c8ad39 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: lol, maleoids owned
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-430a11113c2446e39830454f27c4ae12 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: >most feminists are good people "Most Neo-Nazis are good people" Oh wait. If you're in doubt when you talk about feminism, put Neo-Nazi instead. If it sounds ridiculous, it's not right.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-9cdf4c9848104626a4c0494191dd6970 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I wouldn't know, because I've yet to see anything on EP that's even remotely readable. It's all like three sentence stories fluffed up into the most long-winded nonsense imaginable. ~~"A kid wanted a milkshake and the mum lost her shit when I said the machine was broken"~~ "IT WAS A WARM BUT BREEZY MORNING ON THE NORTHWEST COAST. THE CICADAS, BUZZING IN THE SUN'S WARM GLOW, SIGNALED THAT IT WAS ONCE AGAIN THE SEASON OF ADVENTURE, IRREVERENCE AND YOUTHFUL OPTIMISM..."
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-998db0f39b8646eb98083c4d1100a922 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: This can be proven if you send the mods video of you fucking some bussy.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-98443531819a4691aa8be187a5fa9a0e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Doctor-to-patient billing?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-d0b536a2a96e464d8e646674379e8d2e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: They are, who else do you think is getting offended at jokes about british people
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4dc6b4b7a5504a948061b4fa5e7e0a90 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: There's been an upturn in the amount of people posting arguments they've taken part in. I'd vote to add it to rule 1, because it's the same mentality as what we laughed at the atheism subreddits back in the day. TiA is to laugh at these nutters through the glass bottomed boat. EDIT: I also think OP is going around downvoting those who disagree.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-68c79e747b694694931d8ba79472926d |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: /r/ladyshavers/ for the ladies, and /r/wicked_edge or /r/Wetshaving for the gents.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5906394d73cb49ebb3ad8afe7430abac |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: It all got deleted!! :(
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5390a78f21d840bcaa0a2aa41b0d388b |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: \> finding your own voice \> just doing what everyone else does by following the arbitrary rules set by invasion mods
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-57853c163b6444ffa0d31718abd1f23a |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I need a cigarette after reading that title alone.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f8547f2e2b5841cbbd584435fda888c2 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: >nice stuff >elderly be counted as dependents lmao
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4a80ca5d6e3645239b506f92037ea532 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Fuck
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5c114f4658a0441fb4bfce4be3e60954 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: If you feel like you need a parade to feel okay about yourself being straight which is the most OKAYEST thing on the planet, you are by definition pathetic.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-8ae350a4a1c84bc3a9f893ac52878371 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Yeah, the pre-vet program I'm looking into is also part of agriculture. VA Tech?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-aee7ab94fd644e8b96fae0445bc0667b |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Yeah the jobs nobody would ever take
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-060a77e102d6436e94d5d33ccd5c9d61 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Uhh who defying science now? 4chan creates memes then r/The_Donald popularize them. When was the last fringe left meme that anyone cared about?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-085482d5294849049481a42a200eb8c3 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Not brown enough
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-c7a85b2be0e54b988dcde934aa609072 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Wasn't there a phrase "every time a Targ is born the gods flip a coin"? Danny isn't mad, but her brother definitely was. Then you look at the children of Cersei for another mixed bag. Danny's actions caused a lot of suffering and death, but her actions and thoughts were rational and she really did try to to good. It's hard to hate her too much for seeing people get massacred and in chains and want to radically end that shit. GRM writes about incest because incest was hella common in royalty. Keeping "it" in the family where "it" is the money and land and power. Most of the incest that goes on in-universe is because of that. Or whatever magic is in the blood, like with Caster.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-410f43c798ea4b9ca364b5b809085019 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Oh this has to be satire
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-70e9f19779244c4180b30843c66fac5b |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I fear by the police response that it might be though. "Lack of evidence" we can't investigate any further.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f6e1c64838094af49c0677dca10827eb |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I'm super interested to hear what QAnon had to say about Jussie!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b06a0b11de9547f09b330675ba198b73 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I regularly overestimate how nice the weather is and spend the rest of the day wishing I had a jacket. Never has anyone over the age of 12 thought, "acting like I'm not cold makes me look tough!"
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5208d21b074c45d188f86d878ee65daa |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: it doesnt feel as cozy to jerk off in a spacious room, especially if it's empty one of the best solo nuts (sex-haver btw) was flipped upside down in one end of my closet while moving into this new house. try it bro
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-bf262bb2210c4257a87e7599c5b33f1a |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: In most people's top 5 and everyone's top 10, but yeah he sucks cause he showed some women his penis.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-2b400a1cc0b44359aa36f7052e0984c9 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Guck you, Lady.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-e95ae92f991348588ac3a8f6172bf8bd |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Soon
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8e9fa1344ec4407889867e2a7fe2a2df |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Wait till pewdiepie gets banned. Fucking liberals. Jeez
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-05743bcb8a764aa8a70a4f07f45466df |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: My bad. The Captain's name is Sunil Chetri.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-c8d515d81d51437e86292f361aeda970 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: There are some places where it's not really as true about (I believe areas like Southern Florida or SoCal fit there). Though in my mind it mostly comes out when there's big shifts - eg, when it snows, then two-three days later it's in the 80s.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-08cc18e11394476698a966fc6d4a377e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Make sure to start from your own home before going for the Goat. Because once you get the taste of it, ohh my [gawwwd]. They are just second to 72 hoors.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-8d33adca96f34a55bd62f4de32b95249 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: You'll read fookin' nootin'! *laughs in McGregor*
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-60ec17f823b244e29bbc2cd3b1d66faa |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Repeating things is the internet equivalent of that thing kids do when they throw a tantrum.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8a3a7269e3fb4fb881326e97ee4ea51a |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Yes. Since they defrauded you, but you'd have to know who the fence was AND get them to actually pay the judgement after the case. For someone hocking stolen phones I doubt you'll be able to do either of those.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f807f4d9404049a1bbad68a193b6a930 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Good for you! It's your life, live it the way you want. I hope you have a good, satisfying life!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-356ae622040a46adabca54b45282964e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: I started off as a Sanders supporter in 2016. I was tuned in when Maddow had Trump's tax returns from '95. I was fucking thrilled to get that asshole out. And then it turns out that whole narrative was false. In fact, Trump was paying more than Obama. Neato. It didn't deter many of those in that sub, however. And the more radical they got, I'd still try my best to have a discussion, but before I knew it, I was being labeled a racist neo-Nazi Trump supporter. Got real fucking tired of it. So I went over to T_D, outright stating I didn't care for Trump and voted Sanders. And you know what? They were cool with it. Why? Because I was chatting with them in *good faith*. I wasn't yet another asshole joining their subreddit to call them Nazis and whatever else. Surprise, surprise, they were all (well, mostly all) happy to have rational, level-headed discussions. We could disagree with each other and still be kind. That was when I realized I had been blatantly lied to the whole fucking time. And it shouldn't be a surprise--they're people too. They want to be respected just as much as the Sanders guy. They had fair opinions and positions just as I did. Who'd have thunk it.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-572a375dd7314657892d3d7a5cd15681 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Something with Emma Peel
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-490af3f3606144a9b67e7609be4ad3e7 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: Bourgeioscels rise UP!
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-f50b3a7c5c3e40c580239f2ecf1e362e |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: KittyTheMandible? Is that you?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-ddb9cd669cdd4a3897e4549712f07a55 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: The reason we need pinging back #385 (with special guest AnnArchist!)
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a0a63c2183d442698d898f7578c726ec |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: The same vanguard party that will eventually become one of two things: a bourgeoisie-stand-in bureaucrat class in a devolved worker's state that is inferior to its capitalist counterparts (USSR) or a newly enriched bourgeoisie of a state capitalist shithole that treats its workers worse than it's capitalist counterparts (post-Mao PRC).
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-cef5e8d4f2804817b2648319435858a9 |
Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: No Republican can ever be trusted. Mueller is obviously a Russian agent and we were foolish to ever trust him. Now we need to work hard to impeach Trump.
Output: yes
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Yeah, I wondered how they figured out where the blind spot was too. If it had been London UK instead of Chicago they wouldn't have been able to do it... every single square inch of that city is on multiple cameras.
Output: yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: what kind of person steals from a non profit organization who is using that money to save peoples lives? Um, the same people who explicitly founded and set that non-profit organization up as a way to financially enrich themselves?
Output: no
Now complete the following example -
Input: >Do you realise that America isn't the centre of the world? America is actually the center of the solar system. The Amero-centric model is the only one that makes sense.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-710c2e7cd18c4661895da9db87d4c621 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.