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: Just imagine how miserable her life must be in her constant state of being offended...
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-2a9469164a3d4b66a5b63abdea54325e |
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, they muted me when I asked why they banned me. No reply.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b8a04b2fc54a49ac839140d99cdd76e2 |
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: Must be a really retarded 1st April joke.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-d50b741163d84738978e6de336137887 |
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 classic /r/AsABlackMan approach. It always works.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-74e61570bed544b89b004a0defc563c9 |
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 think you need an AID with that
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-dc3f7279bb6a442faeb8365e2ee3d811 |
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 know you jest but these freaks hate Capitalism so much that they would definitely believe this.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-6757967c148541bf8341cea36bea3c66 |
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 will probably go after the porn subs too.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-e4208ee7f64a42dab5602d45d9274466 |
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: Cheers, I'll drink to that bro
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-97ed307cb7b743b89a82345abf71aa3a |
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 they are not afraid of us clearly we need to give them something to fear
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-c096324ee0fd45ca86959bea743ebcfc |
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: Jon Stewart is on the left We don't agree on much But I honestly despise when people say all he did was push left wing points Jon knew he was an entertainer, but his pure passion for politics really shone through, and honestly is why I am so into politics today Would be a normal thing for me to get home from high school, watch last night's daily show and Colbert, and Google and read up on stuff while I listened to the interview for that day The only thing you can blame Stewart for is his legacy, which I attribute to his retirement It is VERY clear seeing the path Colbert and Oliver took in their solo careers that it was Jon being that that kept them from turning into what they are today Either it was Stewart leaving directly or a change that happened when he did, because I honestly used to enjoy Colbert and I LOVED when Oliver was filling in on the daily show, but as soon as either Jon left/they broke off they just got SHIT
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-c41d86f820c74713aaf96296d243f548 |
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: Lobsterson is providing good drama. Can't wait for him to butthurt the right too.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a75640c7cfa34570a7c8cc14d447cb76 |
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 was not aware there was a real Jon Snow until this moment.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-310065571c10413cb504bbcec10d2ed6 |
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: Brazil? Isn't that the green leafy herb you put on spaghetti sometimes?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b07bc417654e4949aa94d971f48f4726 |
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: Transphobia AND islamaphobia in the same tweet? Do they understand how incongruous those two are? My sides...
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b96c505f5c0045f2bf931c1cef7e646a |
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: Ehh Guan Yu was a real person who was posthumously deified. No different than most Buddhas or saints
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-9001ea0ab69a42cab8820f5f700412f8 |
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: He died the way he lived, with animals in his heart
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8eb8f9f0a3124f07a00d6c49db7fd6fb |
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 just perpetuates the cycle of death. We have the self awareness to break that horrific cycle, but we don't use it.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5df1b02434624860b672c310aaa4ce72 |
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: Darn white people and their... *-spins giant wheel until it lands on a wedge-* Pokémon!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-2357e704a4c849ce81cb9ccfa0512773 |
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: One user thinks an NBA team should fire their coach after the most successful season in nearly two decades.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f43adbcd531f4f9e8d7c30519bdc090c |
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: Hirsin Ali is a fraud for hire.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-46fb7fb8f8a14223bc21c45e63c4b7af |
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 delusions. Bow to your god. Me. Chris Cantelmo.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-bd153c0ff359442ab60e4148e1a53ac6 |
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: Seriously though, what the hell am I supposed to tweet in regards to trans suicides? Unless I know someone who went through that in my life what am I going to say?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b668f06481f14bac9295f2990a25b49b |
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: Cue the flood of triple parentheses blue checkmark "journalists" spewing out articles saying "As a white ally, it's not my place to comment on this, but I'm going to go ahead and comment on this anyway and say that black people should be held to a lower standard than everyone else. They shouldn't be prosecuted for violent crimes because they don't know any better cause they was oppressed and sheeeeeeit. Signed, your woke sista Sarah Goldsteinstein. Hollaaaaaaa!"
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-1ab60819d1d64c5ba532fea4c1c21ce4 |
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: Definitely check out the response to this tweet, some of the burns in there are fucking legendary
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-dfbae1065791494697ab32f1f8a6fbab |
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 mentioned this in a different EGS thread! There must be a witty term for that: when someone's technically on the same side as what could be a reasonable position; but is so insanely obnoxious and ridiculous about everything that they go all the way around into being wrong again? It's very common.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-1a21a866748544aa91b69cf4cd12b280 |
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: Hello TheAverage_American, this post has been found to be in violation of Rule 6: > Use Accurate Titles - Titles must contain a **quote and score** from the content being highlighted. Preferred format: "Quote" [score] (or [score hidden]). You have not included a quote and therefore this post will be removed.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-1b1e8c071d9d44a5aba4cb813bbe746b |
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: Y'know, I'm calling satire on this one. Not because it's satire, but because REFUSE to believe anything they say is at all serious. Like, I KNOW it's a verified account of a well-known "charity" (huge fucking air quotes around that one), but Jesus Christ! They kidnap pets from loving homes and fucking kill them! And then they make these strawman arguments about things no animal rights activist would actually believe. Why, just last year they campaigned for polar bears to go extinct, because breeding them in zoos is unethical. I swear, next time they're going to say treating schistosomiasis in the developing world is actually bad *because parasitic worms deserve to live too!!* Fuck this charity and everything to do with them. The less that people take PETA seriously, the better.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-2536524bfc4a4563b4a7cc5356ae9c44 |
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: **Context** This subreddit focuses on the Duggars, an American fundamentalist Christian family with 19 children from the same parents. This denomination of Christianity is extremely strict. Most of the women only wear skirts below the knee, the children are homeschooled, and they reject modern music and media. The Duggar family had a reality television show called \*19 Kids and Counting\*, which ended due to backlash when it was discovered that the oldest son molested four of the sisters. A new show, called \*Counting On\*, focuses on just the adult children and their lives after the scandal. Both of the TV shows used to have their own subreddits, but they became mostly inactive. This subreddit drama focuses on r/DuggarsSnark, a subreddit created to make snark about the Duggar family. However, there has been discussion between members on the subreddit concerning what constitutes snark and what constitutes "leghumping." Leghumping is fawning over or praising the Duggars, which is not allowed on the sub. Some people believe positive observations (ex: Her hair looks better than usual) or explaining behavior (ex: Is it normal to eat casserole all the time? Yes, that is normal in some regions) are forms of leghumping, while other people do not believe so. **Original Post** [A regular user posted a meme aimed at leghumpers, people in the comments don't like being characterized as leghumpers, there is a fight about what constitutes leghumping][The user then decides to leave the sub] [A different user creates a discussion themed subreddit to supplement the snark subreddit, snark fans tell him to leave][The two main mods (one now deleted) attempt to clarify "leghumping"] [A less active mod makes their own post (now deleted) to clarify "leghumping," using a definition that allows positive comments and explaining to be posted. Some users object.] [The two main mods delete the less active mod's post, and remove that mod] The two main mods make a post to get community feedback, delete post after [feedback][questions]the mods. As a result of the final thread, one mod deleted their account. The other main mod has yet to respond.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-d99f2d5d7af7406b8ee6791eb6f77a7e |
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: LIBCUCK REEEEEEEEE
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-400f3d4e8eb84f00895c6cb85fe11a8b |
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 that boss was really PISSed off
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f99cd3deab1e44e7b9eb72973e2af996 |
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: Ngl i enjoy lizzy cause her family has been cucked into staying quiet and looking pretty for the entertainment addicts, Id get pretty tilted if she got involved in leafs politics. Thats not monarchy tho, i bet they hate the windsor
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-dadb2fa4dee04372b030fbdffd9c01fa |
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 am the minority you dimwitted lunatic.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-56e96f8d603740f4a5abed4590f13505 |
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: ARE is different, because it's really an edutainment show. It's supposed to be factual. TDS and its ilk are propaganda shows that hide behind humor.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5fc8b409c277418db500c9dba38cb488 |
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 feel like I shouldn't be a fan of Slayer anymore after this god dammit
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f11bc502ca9e4f8a876b91441ec60983 |
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: Lmao
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-955d9f8791514cf9a19cb3c2ca917c98 |
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: Ryan Shapiro? Kyle Shapiro? Some super white name, whatever. Wait, yeah, it is Ben Shapiro, I was correct. Yes, weird guy with a weird face. Looks surprised but also enraged 24/7. WEIRD ASS EYEBROWS. Is anybody attracted to that guy? Jeez I just feel like he has killed somebody.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-39c46300be4e4918ad87068d9eff5d33 |
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 mothers kill their kids...
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-0d784ee949204e4d87d0b1dc46f22bcc |
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: Guru Gossip too!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a7b1e2d7051c455f9ac4d7b0754b4645 |
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 want a picture of the future, imagine a bright colored boot stamping on a human face... forever.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-bb4e16ca0c0c4f25bd58ea4576597d41 |
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: Haha this must be how the rightoids felt about the bar memo.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-03759996de7149c7ba6559818f80831f |
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're also bitching about not making any tips. It's easy to gain tips if you're friendly and provide good service. Being attractive also helps, but I've seen "plain-looking" guys rake in a lot of tips because they were charismatic and entertaining. Complaining that you're not making any tips doesn't mean it's capitalism's fault... most of the time, *it's your own.*
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-2c1fb122b0f34ace8ab1b9e84ca310c1 |
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: Like bags of sand.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-81a0eb41ad3e4ef78b7994997deb65e6 |
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, i'm just gonna say that OP of that post is wrong. Not every european country has hoteps.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-330dd5ee89a246fe8b1014088c39da4b |
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: >Any other questions? Uh yeah, what the fuck
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-7f4df4107310491890bbb7952545d6f7 |
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: .
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5ae23551bb514fe4b74ff07f69822c24 |
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: > Furthermore, a lot of players do some form of mana weaving to stack their decks. this is cheating and/or stalling (a distinct penalty) and judges should be way harsher on it.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-69c8bddfddcd460691f817f9e5dca391 |
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/SubredditDrama (known brigaders) tries to tease /r/ChapTraphouse (heavy brigaders), gets their shit pushed in, locks the thread. Might wanna stick to the Minor Leagues, SRD!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-5182cc7dbd744471bb9eed52566ccc01 |
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, if you play as the German Reich and DON'T kill Hitler to bring back the Kaiser, you're the problem.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-daa72642862c43e596f4b0246489e51b |
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: Vro if you haven't read one piece it's pretty good. But it is almost 1000 chapters so that turns people off it.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-e4ae4ea6e79b42f29ecbb604b7f564ca |
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 only way to stop a bad guy with a spatula is a good guy with just about anything. Holy kek
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-6ebc94889bca4486b89fe312306e5213 |
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 like to point out that this thread has over 10 times the comments the original thread has
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-f5f4ece79b2847ea8dd804473fac260a |
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, actual, you do. That is how assertions work. You cite the evidence. You don't go "gravity is a government plot to keep women down" and have people believe you without proof, sparkletits.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-debf92d70fb94d9ba9fbd8633fc5e5e7 |
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: OP should sell his concert tickets and spend the whole night smashing the girl. Bonus points for selling them to the friend he rejected.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-689b2083f497417b89d6e8fb7923f86d |
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: Isn't this hate speech? Why is reddit doing nothing to protect their most persecuted demographic?
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-404437c0fc9349b2806cb7b68f2e914a |
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 don't get what you mean by that.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-1dad251f4642485a927abdbaca623ca8 |
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: That's not even remotely true. I also joke about 9/11, the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorism, abortion, and all kinds of other things since I have never matured in the slightest.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b3605d259b2946869ec4368dbe307d1c |
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: Moral pirates are the worst. Just fucking say you want the game for free.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-52504b6f5c0842a1baf4f40c6f88c4af |
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: u/vredditdownloader
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-19a1290817564c80a82121a76753ea3d |
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: What is this from again?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-3825bebfe4454a94b4f05b56bebd99db |
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 don't know. I thought i was well liked and I certainly get a lot of upvotes and I don't usually leg hump... but I guess everyone can like you except one mod and that's really the only person that matters. I think subreddits can be fun as long as the mods don't overdo it. Stop with all the rules. If the leg humping gets excessive, then delete it. But don't delete and ban people that actually bring something to the table just because you don't like them. It seems unfair to be banned over a mod not liking you.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-551d2711ad1b468eb2dfeeafae0fbe2f |
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: Shouldnt have conquered muslim territory you fucking retard?
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-0bb547dea9d242e3a4f833ef6d99d6b6 |
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 love emus and hate Muslims!" That should keep them busy for a couple of decades
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-e17aaaf02189442993604bea22e84343 |
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: >going to /b/ to escape gayness You're in for a surprise
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-22fecc4ed2a04119abc03260836eb272 |
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 why we need common sense wrench control
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-0c4340b0fddd4420b9287e1688ee4e42 |
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: Ahh Hop Cat. Which college were the students from that caused the change?
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-ce8b20ba404b4260b8608ea4f9126b0a |
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: man I hate that mf White People he mad annoying me and the homies just tryna eat and he come here with a trail of beer behind him firing shots at us while wearing a kkk hood
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a2b95082b6c44ecebd37b2ed3555e86c |
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: Alliances are just Clan Friendships, maybe! I'm not confident in being this reductive!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-e91d79437c434f19a79a2ae14495198a |
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: Ever checked out badcopnodonut? Those people are fucked up militants wanting to kill police. I was surprised cause it makes the front page pretty often but there's some wackos in that sub, major SJW types I'd guess.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-74d00826e8f54d2d999492b00894b08c |
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: Gimme the bussy
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-6ac51f3aa50f48fab8b9942079a2d368 |
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 reconfirms they are a bunch of children there. The kid is in highschool being edgy. What a fucking pussy.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8ce6beec84064d8aa81073e2d3360d3b |
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 last few seasons were obviously garbage but I had hope for this one because they were supposed to be giving us GRRM's ending. Played myself I guess
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4c3c07094d144f53b81a2b670d4894a6 |
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: Plus many chinese places serve western/Americanized Chinese food.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-890933e5bd004ffb96899105d735da0a |
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: Hillary Clinton recently tried to co-opt "rent free" in some interview.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-bad936e8f5df41139e56d14ae0f2d2ea |
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: Welcome to chinese philosophy.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-a66599a5c5a4467f93f9fcf690b20760 |
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: At this time in my life, considering all that's occurred in my life, I'm pretty sure I'm what you would classify as asexual. No desire for sexual contact or sexual relationships. The concept of sex alone makes me uncomfortable. This makes it hard to have any discussions about my current relationship with my girlfriend because the people in my life that I love dearly keep telling me that "I don't know what I'm missing" and "You'll change your mind after you have sex for the first time" like no you guys aren't understanding I don't WANT to have sex and they just can't understand the concept. My mother claims it makes no sense, and that my natural desire as a human being should be to breed and it's just frustrating because otherwise my family are wonderful people. It just frustrates me sometimes, and then I feel bad because asexuality is so uncommon that no, they shouldn't immediately understand it. But I hope they can, even if they don't understand it, at least support me and my feelings sometime down the line. I won't lose sleep or hate them or anything but I would like to not hear "You just don't know yet" anymore.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4a04d751d4274040bbf5a596f2b9b7fb |
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 what does that make you? Use a little self reflection.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-b62c7e069aab41be95d0fd546405db00 |
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 shame lobsters are associated with this autist, because I kind of like the design.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-f0ce352c246d4eeeae4145b75087915b |
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: Exactly where I got that from
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-4e7e9906bb2045ebbadd895bfd9e23e9 |
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 say if he knew who did it (a friend of his) and doctored his phone records to throw the police off the trail that's a hoax. I am confident a jury would agree.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-39671b1ac9af41709cfbb978f37e1364 |
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: On the need for "racial literacy" (oh, and the dictionary definition is wrong too...)
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-18d84cce25c34e3794bfefc7aed5812a |
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 lot cheaper than hiring someone here. Instead of google(biggest H1B visa abuser I'm aware of) shelling out a standard starting salary of $150k for a US work, they can start someone out at 80k from India or Europe excluding Germany.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-ef5f8047ecb0443ca8badfcbd4bbe227 |
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 wonder if she'd give her grandchildren the same inhuman detachment she gave those kids
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-a284303b2397497d98a7050e8b372b8e |
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: *Pikachu uses Posion Gas* *It's super effective*
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-343d18f1676c44e4ab6b820aa2cc3f27 |
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: > Dasha Nekrasova > Anna Khachiyan > > Change my mind Not knowing who these foids are > being fucking retarded
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-140c246cbfc64b9dae37bf87e843dd1e |
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: >Still will not allow you to boast about your desire to shoot the law enforcement officials who enforce the rules and order of the legislature. Sure it would. That's protected speech.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-62758f887c194f8b8047fc28d73051e9 |
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: man you are just aggressively retarded every time i see you
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-63af1d876825453988adde0e843d3b3c |
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 other TiA posts I noted that gender identity activists don't merely want the right to be who they are or to be treated as just another human being, they want *preferential* treatment. Which is how they can accuse statements rooted in biology to be "transphobic," because it gets in the way of being treated preferentially to the rest of the population. That's also how you can still be considered a hateful, harmful, *dangerous* person even if you treat transgendered people the same way you'd respectfully treat anyone else. I have a strong suspicion the fellow claiming TiA is a hate sub considers anyone who *doesn't* provide enthusiastic praise for being trans as "hateful," hence why I mentioned the Anakin Skywalker mentality. Which would necessarily include a lot of the transgendered/nonbinary TiA regulars who aren't fond of this shit either. Then again, activists like these are quite notorious for treating dissent among their own favored demographics as treason.
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-9c32521f569f4a2fa12d802576505bf4 |
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: Poor baby :(. You couldn't have known from just the fact that she wasn't playful that she was sick, everything else pointed otherwise and you were a good caretaker.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-808988bd56e64baf899fdccb8e36d729 |
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 sex of life of a single person is awesome
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-c864c9b477494b72824312d0c869b1c6 |
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/StrangeStatistics gets banned for being unmoderated after 1 mod goes MIA and the other is banned by reddit, user makes r/Strange_Statistics - banned for ban evasion
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-3ed8a9701c00456c87e0b617cf72a68c |
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: Man I miss this show
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-38b96c6520da44d3b801766df64305ed |
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 worth looking into. It's unusual to actually *see* a bedbug at all because they feed when you sleep and are generally inactive otherwise. Seeing one out of its element is an indication of crowding or territorial expansion.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8175c94b769142b9bea6780f74e06976 |
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: We are in vehement agreement.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-1763a337a068496f94f3b667f7875e1c |
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 a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/drama] [Genuine radical centrist who is definitely not seriousposting educates fellow dramatards about how rightists are the lesser retards] *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-3b4a757c43174c21970f98f289a4934e |
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 will add it to my post-grad school reading list
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-7e88c83e4b6244aaa944e7a4a3f626fc |
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've always tried hard in things. In school, I studied every day and got good grades, tried to do volunteering, did student council and stuff, and did my best to be a generally nice person. But somehow, my friend was always better. She got similar grades without trying. She applied to the same scholarships that I did and got them all while I never got a single reply. Everyone seems to like her. I notice that whenever we are in a conversation with someone else, they look at her and only glance at me occasionally (I know, this is not something regular people would notice). She is even better than me in a completely luck based phone game we play. I lose in every area of life. I know comparing myself to her this way is unhealthy and self-destructive, and that I should focus on improving myself instead. But I can't stop. I've started to resent her for always having it easier than me. Now, on top of everything else, I feel like she's a better person than me for not hating her best friend. I doubt anyone will care about this, but I just really wanted to get this off my chest after so long.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-61d0b6248adf44d8ab32732d8b097700 |
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: like a launcher for launchers? that's brilliant!
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-33c4c778c8a84aa3872ab228ed3d934b |
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 almost did a compilation here. It's truly dumb stuff. They are talking about protestors who impede operations or people who damage infrastructure. Of course, to the denizens of r/politics, this means TX wants to jail people for "peacefully protesting" and America is finished.
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-8b5e7766d64b4d86baa10c63dbcaf3ac |
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: Fake: You have talent Gay: Your drew a frog drawing a dick
Output:
| [
"yes"
]
| task108-7c9473910cba4746b7b52245c61f3bd0 |
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 the one comment that matters, and it's buried deep.]
Output:
| [
"no"
]
| task108-70ac5fb5999243009b266f4de81a2b8b |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.