inputs stringlengths 1.31k 11.8k | targets stringclasses 12 values | _template_idx int64 0 9 | _task_source stringclasses 1 value | _task_name stringclasses 1 value | _template_type stringclasses 2 values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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].
Ex Input:
Fuck off normie
Ex Output:
yes
Ex Input:
If Jesus came back he'd be like "Well I was supposed to rapture this place, but I'm honestly not sure you guys would get the message."
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Or attractive
Ex Output:
| yes
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
So **MetaCommando** was it a head injury, a repetitive head injury or maybe lead paint chips you ate? Remember as your care giver may have neglected to tell you or your short term memory is shot too. [Always ware your special helmet.]
yes
For Latinas I can wear Bikini. They are hot af.
no
He's on his fucking deathbed and Shane died in space
| no
| 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example is below.
Q: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
A: yes
Rationale: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: He's on his fucking deathbed and Shane died in space
A: | no | 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
dad what are vaginas like
no
Lungi masterrace if Northies wear lungi nothing can stop pan parag from dominating universe
no
When even getting a good education qualifies as "white supremacy".
| no
| 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example is below.
Q: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
A: yes
Rationale: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: When even getting a good education qualifies as "white supremacy".
A: | no | 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: Can someone please tell me what this clip is, it's in like a bunch of webm compilations. But I don't get it.
[A]: no
[Q]: What's the link I wanna see the cute sister
[A]: no
[Q]: A well dressed woman!
[A]: | no
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Example output: yes
Example explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: You're only allowed to discuss the things you care about if you also discuss the things I care about even if they're totally unrelated! >:T
A: | no | 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example Input: Can that rag be used to make arm bands?
Example Output: no
Example Input: Sangat ka asar dekhiye inn Devi ji ka... Journey from Bellsprout #069 to Weepinbell #070...
Example Output: no
Example Input: You're only allowed to discuss the things you care about if you also discuss the things I care about even if they're totally unrelated! >:T
Example Output: | no
| 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Input: Consider Input: Whoa! Now I gotta check that out. Where is that from?
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: Size does not matter if you blow your steam within 15 sec of her touching you.
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: Obviously by "study" it means he is aware they aren't strictly positivist disciplines (though he wouldn't use the word "positivism"), and that it is therefore not "science", and is therefore invalid. I sit right across from someone who thinks like this at my job, and the one thing we can't talk about is soft sciences and humanities.
| Output: no
| 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Q: The same people that think a mechanical engineer is also a climate change expert also think that if you chop your dick off and slap on a pair of fake tits you can be a woman.
A: yes
****
Q: The set up to that was fucking perfect.
A: no
****
Q: Hey! I don't think you are a loser :) I think by making this post it shows you do want to change, and by having regret over not doing things at the end of the year it shows you want to change as well. That is important, if you don't really have the drive to grow, then you aren't going to. I don't know where you live, but perhaps there is a community center, or a park? A place for you to walk? Going to a center or a park where there are people could help you make friends, and get exercise as well. If you don't know how to break the ice with someone, giving them a compliment might work, or asking them a question about something they have with them (like, "oh that's a cool phone, what kind is it?"). Take the conversation from there (if they seem comfortable with the confrontation). You can't make friends if you don't put yourself out there at least a little. I also don't know your interests, but go to places where you can find people with similar ones. If you go to a store that has things that interest you, even talking to the employees could help. They probably have an interest in the thing too, and they have to be welcoming to customers, so it is good practice to try talking to them if you are still uncomfortable with the idea of making friends. Also, chatting with people online leads to more practice as well as online friends that can be there for you! For losing weight, start simple. Don't tell yourself you are going to start going to the gym everyday if you don't think you will, and don't feel bad for knowing how much you can or can't handle. Again, I don't know how chubby you are, but you know yourself. Take a walk everyday, introduce one healthy food into your life (or take away one unhealthy food) every week if diet is a problem for you. And let yourself have a cheat day, it can help you in the long run. If you are scared to work out in public, buy some weights of your own and watch some Netflix while lifting them. Make it somewhat enjoyable so you stick with it, so ooh don't get discouraged for not wanting to follow through. I believe in you! Good luck to you, friend :D
A: | no
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Q: I don't think I'll ever be truly happy again
A: no
****
Q: I wish people are more accepting towards trans. Suicide is abnormally high. Acceptance is all that's needed
A: no
****
Q: Violence no longer has meaning. I can't wait until one of these Tumblrites starts some shit, gets beaten to a bloody fucking black and blue pulp, and then *REALLY* learns what violence is.
A: | no
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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].
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Why? This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
New input: Violence no longer has meaning. I can't wait until one of these Tumblrites starts some shit, gets beaten to a bloody fucking black and blue pulp, and then *REALLY* learns what violence is.
Solution: | no | 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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].
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Why? This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
New input: Hey! I don't think you are a loser :) I think by making this post it shows you do want to change, and by having regret over not doing things at the end of the year it shows you want to change as well. That is important, if you don't really have the drive to grow, then you aren't going to. I don't know where you live, but perhaps there is a community center, or a park? A place for you to walk? Going to a center or a park where there are people could help you make friends, and get exercise as well. If you don't know how to break the ice with someone, giving them a compliment might work, or asking them a question about something they have with them (like, "oh that's a cool phone, what kind is it?"). Take the conversation from there (if they seem comfortable with the confrontation). You can't make friends if you don't put yourself out there at least a little. I also don't know your interests, but go to places where you can find people with similar ones. If you go to a store that has things that interest you, even talking to the employees could help. They probably have an interest in the thing too, and they have to be welcoming to customers, so it is good practice to try talking to them if you are still uncomfortable with the idea of making friends. Also, chatting with people online leads to more practice as well as online friends that can be there for you! For losing weight, start simple. Don't tell yourself you are going to start going to the gym everyday if you don't think you will, and don't feel bad for knowing how much you can or can't handle. Again, I don't know how chubby you are, but you know yourself. Take a walk everyday, introduce one healthy food into your life (or take away one unhealthy food) every week if diet is a problem for you. And let yourself have a cheat day, it can help you in the long run. If you are scared to work out in public, buy some weights of your own and watch some Netflix while lifting them. Make it somewhat enjoyable so you stick with it, so ooh don't get discouraged for not wanting to follow through. I believe in you! Good luck to you, friend :D
Solution: | no | 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
That sub is pure shit that ate itself and shit again.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
instruction:
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].
question:
Whats this story?
answer:
no
question:
I wonder how long the NCAA keeps the Elite Eight, Final Four, or even "Champion"
answer:
no
question:
Deeper in the thread: > User has been banned for 3 days, for being overly defensive of trans. FUCKIN' HELL
answer:
| no
| 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: JUST
[A]: no
[Q]: TERF's are just feminists who are open about not wanting a way for men to get any of the special privileges that have been opened up however its quite clear that the average feminist also believes that. In areas like sport where a very small amount of the population takes the majority of the earnings/repute/fame (no one really cares about anything but the top 10 or so individuals) they swiftly moved to remove transgender males. I'm sure if M2F transgender becomes a large enough group and makes use of the other privileges those same feminists will swiftly move to do the same thing there.
[A]: no
[Q]: I'm scared of job interviews and speaking ~~in public~~ in front of crowds help help help
[A]: | no
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
Extremism btfo, you show 'em, snappy
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Ex Input:
> have ever been straight, or will be straight Yeah...that's not how that works...
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
This is why mom doesn't fucking love you
Ex Output:
yes
Ex Input:
Extremism btfo, you show 'em, snappy
Ex Output:
| no
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Input: Consider Input: > The statement notes operators have "an average of 20 minutes to consume a meal and get to their next access point to ensure all buses and trains are on time, safe, and ready to serve the riding public." Literally from the article. Also from the wording it sounds like she had no choice unless she wanted to hold up transit just to eat lunch after arriving.
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: I'm guessing this happens because, while many gay people do agree with fluidity of sexuality, we are also often told we just need to 'find the right person' etc and it causes them to get defensive. I know that you are right, but I still get upset if someone tells me I just need to find the right man because the intention is usually to dismiss my sexuality, while your intention was just to share information.
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: If she can't understand that "all women are thots" applies to only promiscuous women rather than each woman personally then she's not the one for you
| Output: yes
| 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
TASK 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].
PROBLEM: Well shit
SOLUTION: no
PROBLEM: I mean, "fascism is a set of emotional traits" is one of the most retarded takes ever.
SOLUTION: yes
PROBLEM: It's a simple black and white mentality. Everything I don't like is the worst. Everything I love is the best.
SOLUTION: | no
| 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example is below.
Q: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
A: yes
Rationale: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: Just lettuce is barbaric. You also need a ton of mayo. Got yourself a SHREDDER.
A: | no | 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
Like bags of sand.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Part 1. 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].
Part 2. Example
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Answer: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Part 3. Exercise
Nice bro guess what i can't pull nobody man :(
Answer: | no | 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Input: Consider Input: Um, Pikachu hasn't been telling anyone jack-shit besides, "Pika" for the last 20 years. He hasn't been whispering sweet nothings into the screen and subtly brainwashing people to form some sort of incel army.
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: I see you haven't met 4chan
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: Pretty much
| Output: yes
| 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Detailed Instructions: 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].
See one example below:
Problem: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Problem: The only autistic thing there is unraveling of the truth through comments. > It's absolutely disgusting how heavily fetishized Asian women are, yet there are some Asian women out there that claim that non-Asian men are more respectful than Asian men. The irony being that these people used to [force women to bind their feet]([Link]
Solution: | yes | 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Example solution: yes
Example explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Problem: I feel like I'd give up my soul not to work. Well it feels like I'm giving up my soul when I am in work. When you have mental health problems it's like doing everything on hard mode. I get quite anxious when I'm not performing well. And I have some social anxiety which means I can't defend myself or make friends easily or have any chance of promotion. Recently I've only managed to last a few weeks in roles before quitting. The work dread just becomes too much. I do always think to myself I can find a job I can deal with but I cant. Even the low down jobs are very demanding and I can't keep up with the pace. I am on the verge of losing my current job as I keep getting told off and they are complaining I take too long to complete work which is costing them money. I'm not saying I'm never working again but it feels like I haven't got the mental capacity to hold any job down. I don't know what I can do with myself. EDIT: I also have a gf who has a professional job and I risk losing her if I don't work. I also risk being homeless and a lot of other things. Probably not worth quitting but also I'm not sure how much I can take
| Solution: no | 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Q: Seems more like r/offensivememes
A: no
****
Q: Notice how its "gets my goat" as opposed to "gets my doe". Patriarchy. Patriarchy everywhere.
A: no
****
Q: Except it already was you drooling retard.
A: | yes
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: What kind of retarded thought train wreck is that defense? No, you clearly didn't mean anything of the sort. "We should shoot all black people until we find a solution". No that's clearly not racist, because I meant shoot them a text with words of encouragement. But I didn't say that in the quote, did I? So the quote is still racist.
[A]: yes
[Q]: Usually covered under POC, but I'm not saying it can't be, because these people don't make any damn sense anyway.
[A]: yes
[Q]: Anon knows his mission early in life Gay
[A]: | yes
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Example output: yes
Example explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: man you are just aggressively retarded every time i see you
A: | yes | 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: I switched to a straight razor about a year ago and there's no going back.
Solution: | no | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Detailed Instructions: 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].
See one example below:
Problem: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Problem: OEM. LOL
Solution: | no | 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Part 1. 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].
Part 2. Example
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Answer: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Part 3. Exercise
ɴᴏᴡ ᴘʟᴀʏɪɴɢ: [राम लला हम आएंगे , मंदिर वही] ─────────⚪───── ◄◄⠀[▶]⠀►►⠀ 4:06 / 6:09 ⠀ ───○ ᴴᴰ ⚙️
Answer: | no | 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
Do you think Hurriyat needs security? Security was actually spying on them.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
TASK 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].
PROBLEM: He used to live in a one room set in my neighborhood during his struggling days. Never met him but saw him leaving and entering the house many times. That time no one could guess that he would be such a success. For the whole neighborhood, he was just another Punjabi singer.
SOLUTION: no
PROBLEM: jeez guy got some big votes on r/nba
SOLUTION: no
PROBLEM: I feel like I'd give up my soul not to work. Well it feels like I'm giving up my soul when I am in work. When you have mental health problems it's like doing everything on hard mode. I get quite anxious when I'm not performing well. And I have some social anxiety which means I can't defend myself or make friends easily or have any chance of promotion. Recently I've only managed to last a few weeks in roles before quitting. The work dread just becomes too much. I do always think to myself I can find a job I can deal with but I cant. Even the low down jobs are very demanding and I can't keep up with the pace. I am on the verge of losing my current job as I keep getting told off and they are complaining I take too long to complete work which is costing them money. I'm not saying I'm never working again but it feels like I haven't got the mental capacity to hold any job down. I don't know what I can do with myself. EDIT: I also have a gf who has a professional job and I risk losing her if I don't work. I also risk being homeless and a lot of other things. Probably not worth quitting but also I'm not sure how much I can take
SOLUTION: | no
| 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Example output: yes
Example explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: No lie here friend.
A: | no | 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
Someone did put a noose around his neck and probably definitely said the words "this is maga country". Not a hoax. All of the things he said were confirmed to have happened.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example Input: Who the hell even keeps track of the race of the artists they listen to? Lmao that has nothing to do with the quality of the music being produced.
Example Output: no
Example Input: Not to be a nerd or anything, but I don't think there's any Pokemon that can learn that moveset. (:
Example Output: no
Example Input: Some, but not the level that is generally intended when talking about STEM. It's finance/business, and while numeracy is important, it only goes so far.
Example Output: | no
| 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
--------
Question: Nice bro guess what i can't pull nobody man :(
Answer: no
Question: I think a lot of the people on this sub are
Answer: no
Question: I would really really like to watch a baby try to eat an apple.
Answer: | no
| 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[EX Q]: Yeah, whoops I'll fix
[EX A]: no
[EX Q]: >This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws. [mfw]
[EX A]: no
[EX Q]: Impossible. Think of the shareholders!
[EX A]: | no
| 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[EX Q]: Why is eating breakfast at work such a big deal? Why is this person a snitch?
[EX A]: no
[EX Q]: Smallu will be the next great player, mark my words!
[EX A]: no
[EX Q]: Someone did put a noose around his neck and probably definitely said the words "this is maga country". Not a hoax. All of the things he said were confirmed to have happened.
[EX A]: | no
| 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Ex Input:
Are you trying to tell me to read wholesome content to cure myself if this disease? Cause that's pretty nice if you.
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Like she could just buy a ticket herself. They act like expecting a free ticket is not the same as expecting someone to hand you free money.
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Came here for this.
Ex Output:
| no
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: > They might be smart, but that makes them evil. Stupidity is an easy out given by the left that assumes the best in everyone. These people see all Republicans as comic book villains.
Solution: | yes | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Input: Consider Input: But he would hate republicans!
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: Just stop being poor lol
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: inb4 sub is banned and account suspended for ban evasion
| Output: no
| 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
--------
Question: no, cars are bullshit so i don't drive them. i just shoulder check motherfuckers in the streets
Answer: no
Question: Sorry for what you have been through. You should report her to the police. You were a minor, she could be abusing young kids even now.
Answer: no
Question: This is it boys. Peak political discourse on Reddit.
Answer: | no
| 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
What is this from again?
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example Input: ESAs can't go everywhere. But it sounds like you might benefit from one. >we've all got shit we're dealing with, go out and deal with it. That's exactly what ESAs do.
Example Output: no
Example Input: >Because it can learn any move, some people began research to see if it is the ancestor of all Pokémon. - Pokemon Crystal it can learn all moves
Example Output: no
Example Input: >Can anyone legitimately explain how does "pirating doesn't affect anyone's sales, that's a myth" coincide with "I'm going to pirate this game, that's called voting with my wallet and they'll see what a mistake they've made". Doesn't that directly contradict their argument?? It's very close to a contradiction. They could make the claim that, if they were somehow prevented from using piracy, they *still wouldn't buy the game*, therefore it doesn't preclude a potential sale. The real gem is this: I think there might actually be data suggesting that more piracy leads to more sales. So, by participating in piracy, they would be contributing to the game's popularity which would imply more sales.
Example Output: | no
| 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
Buy jojoba oil Ejac into hand Mix in a pea sized drop of jojoba Apply mix to area in a circular motion for 2-3 minutes
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
>Can anyone legitimately explain how does "pirating doesn't affect anyone's sales, that's a myth" coincide with "I'm going to pirate this game, that's called voting with my wallet and they'll see what a mistake they've made". Doesn't that directly contradict their argument?? It's very close to a contradiction. They could make the claim that, if they were somehow prevented from using piracy, they *still wouldn't buy the game*, therefore it doesn't preclude a potential sale. The real gem is this: I think there might actually be data suggesting that more piracy leads to more sales. So, by participating in piracy, they would be contributing to the game's popularity which would imply more sales.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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].
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Why? This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
New input: There's been an upturn in the amount of people posting arguments they've taken part in. I'd vote to add it to rule 1, because it's the same mentality as what we laughed at the atheism subreddits back in the day. TiA is to laugh at these nutters through the glass bottomed boat. EDIT: I also think OP is going around downvoting those who disagree.
Solution: | yes | 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Input: Consider Input: :(
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: I haven't played in a while so maybe they changed it, but I definitely remember games of Eternal where I drew no Power or all Power. Maybe slightly less common than Magic (the influence system means you're less likely to get screwed with multi-color decks), but it's still a possibility
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: Just when I thought people arguing about Carolus Rex vs Peter the Great 300 years after the Great Northern War was bad enough....
| Output: no
| 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Input: Consider Input: Did Trump call Nazi's "Very Fine People"? Users in /r/PoliticalHumor discuss the context of the quote.
Output: no
Input: Consider Input: Judging people based on sexuality, gender and race is wrong! I wish you straight white cismales would get that!
Output: yes
Input: Consider Input: I'd say it's a fair bit different than Europe because those tyrants were more successful. Warring states periods in China are seen as transitory periods between one dynasty and the next, not the norm. The norm is to be a united realm. It's like if the Roman Empire had been properly rebuilt after its fall. Of course this is excluding areas that were traditionally outside of Han control, such as the western territories that weren't added until the Qing Dynasty.
| Output: no
| 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
> ...this company has been telling people for 20 years what many feel they have never heard genuinely on their own. Correct. I have never heard "pika pika" genuinely on my own.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Or just, you know. Don't shave. The only thing that ever gets shaved is my head. And maybe my sack.
no
tryhard
no
Lol no one here likes spez. Hes a faggot and so are you. HILLDAWG2020 BABY
| yes
| 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Let me give you an example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
The answer to this example can be: yes
Here is why: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
OK. solve this:
What a weird fucking sub you drama folks are.
Answer: | no | 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: Yes, a husband should be able to provide his wife with some action despite minuscule barriers such as.... age.
[A]: yes
[Q]: Nice drawing anon. You're pretty cool, wanna be frens?
[A]: no
[Q]: y kid Y!
[A]: | no
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example Input: true, he has come of age a few times after that
Example Output: no
Example Input: I think a lot of the people on this sub are
Example Output: no
Example Input: My friend (let's call her C) was basically one of my first friends in college, and she's helped me through a lot of tough shit (depression, anxiety, losing a family member, losing a friend). I've known her since sophomore year, and now we're both seniors. I'm graduating in 2.5 months, but she's staying for a 5th year. Most of my friends are juniors or staying for a 5th year, so it's going to be really tough for me to leave my friends behind. My college friends are like my family. I've also helped C through a nasty breakup with one of her previous girlfriends. Because of this, I was happy for her when she got her new girlfriend last year, but now I think things have gotten weird. She literally spends all her time with her girlfriend. Like always. Even though C lives with just one other dude, her girlfriend is practically her third roommate, and I know this pisses off C's actual roommate. C's girlfriend doesn't go to college and just lives in the same town we go to school in. C has just gradually stopped talking to me. She even killed our ~600 day snapchat streak a few months ago for practically no reason. Sometimes she'll randomly send me a meme or two on Facebook and I'll try to start a conversation with her, but 95% of the time the conversation ends with her leaving me on read. Sometimes, I'll see C's other friends around on campus and they'll ask me if I've ever heard from C, because they haven't. Because of this I know this isn't something C's just doing to me, but she's doing this to all her friends. I'm happy that C is happy in her relationship, but I'm hurt that she's practically cut off myself and all of her other friends. Since I'm graduating in a few months, I want to spend as much time with all of my friends as possible before I leave campus. I haven't seen her in months, and I'm worried that if she doesn't get her shit together, I may not see her again before I graduate **Thanks for reading. I know this isn't an advice subreddit, but if anyone's been in a similar situation, let me know how you dealt with it**
Example Output: | no
| 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Whoa! Now I gotta check that out. Where is that from?
no
No one has ever gone up to my face and yelled pika pika to me. Thank God Nintendo has given me my desires
no
u have to call the pizza store and ask for a special *cheese pizza*
| no
| 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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].
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Why? This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
New input: Yes, just one; what exactly are you smoking?
Solution: | no | 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
I mean he tried blaming white people for it and was willing to put two innocent white people in prison if you think about it. So yea this has todo with white people too. The Jussie thing is so horrid it crosses that racial line. Horrid repercussions for all.
no
I'm super interested to hear what QAnon had to say about Jussie!
no
Here a quote about pride from the worstof thread that was posted about him >I'm just saying I don't personally see how that is ultimately productive when me as a straight male observer is not receiving the important information Which was in response to someone explaining to him that pride isn't about straight people.
| no
| 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
instruction:
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].
question:
Done
answer:
no
question:
Indeed. It is a sad day, and one I hoped never to live to see.
answer:
no
question:
Is this referring to the saints?
answer:
| no
| 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: Get over it. The sub is for snarking. Not for complimenting the Duggars. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.
Solution: | no | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: Notorious r/drama cabal member u/ed_butteredtoast steals from the rich to spy on the poor
Solution: | yes | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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].
Example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Output: yes
This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
New input case for you: > upper class That is how it used to be, it's being pushed into the main stream by these figures akin to a new Weimar republic. A lot of these journos and community leaders have a strange interest into pushing sexuality everywhere. Just look at that digusting shit with Desmond dancing in a stripping club after being featured on prime time tv and NY billboards while his father is tagging his photos #loveislove on instagram.
Output: | no | 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: I got called a Nazi unironically today for posting a picture of a frog playing with a butterfly
[A]: no
[Q]: Hey at least a girl touched your pee pee
[A]: no
[Q]: >implying the Jews weren't involved
[A]: | yes
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: Actually I'm sure the chance is much higher if they were forced into it.
Solution: | no | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Part 1. 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].
Part 2. Example
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Answer: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Part 3. Exercise
Reversed conversion therapy when?
Answer: | no | 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
TASK 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].
PROBLEM: Ohh you will always be Doing it for free Ohhhh you will never be Compensated monetarily Reddit janny
SOLUTION: yes
PROBLEM: Like she could just buy a ticket herself. They act like expecting a free ticket is not the same as expecting someone to hand you free money.
SOLUTION: no
PROBLEM: I mean "fucking" isn't always used in a sexual way. I can see how somebody glances at it and saw "r/ dragons and fucking cars" or something
SOLUTION: | no
| 8 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Detailed Instructions: 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].
See one example below:
Problem: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Problem: Like how French Revoluionaries were guillotined themselves for being a menace to society. Modern idiots really have no foresight. Even when history taught us.
Solution: | no | 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Ex Input:
Just be honest and up front about it, but don't be rude. Just say hey that ain't my thing, and if he respects that then carry on with whatever you're both comfortable with. But if he doesn't respect it and keeps going he's most likely both a bit odd, and not really a keeper. I could go either way to be honest, it's not my favorite thing but hey if someone's into that who am I to judge
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
And that's all that matters in the eyes of supporters. The card says moops as far as their concerned.
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Thats every game
Ex Output:
| no
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
--------
Question: It is never their fault.
Answer: yes
Question: IF YOU'RE IN A DRIVE THROUGH YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE IF YOU ORDER FOOD FOR 10 FUCKING PEOPLE
Answer: no
Question: Ayyyy mayo lmao
Answer: | yes
| 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: Now number Five
Solution: | no | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Example output: yes
Example explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: Did you just assume the gender of their straw?
A: | no | 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
instruction:
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].
question:
Please, call me God. Or is that too above you?
answer:
no
question:
> "I love emus and hate Muslims!" That should keep them busy for a couple of decades
answer:
yes
question:
Faggot
answer:
| yes
| 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Ex Input:
Nah, this can't be real. Seriously?
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Can that rag be used to make arm bands?
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
He wasn't friends with her, his sister was.
Ex Output:
| no
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Teacher: 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].
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Reason: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this instance: >There were a lot of guys who made donations ages ago on the understanding they'd have nothing to do with the kids as a result, and some decades later, the politicians decided it wasn't FAAAAAIRRRRRRRRR that the kids wouldn't know who their "real dads" were and to know what their "genetic risks" and so forth are. So they basically gave kids access to the files. Putting genetic risks in quotations is a nice dismissal. I'm adopted and had bowel cancer that was caused by a distinct gene or group of genes. If I had known about having the genetic background, my doctor would have been screening me more than a decade before the cancer, which was on the cusp of killing me, was discovered. What a classy, classy person.
Student: | no | 2 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Part 1. 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].
Part 2. Example
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Answer: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Part 3. Exercise
12 hour shifts, most likely.
Answer: | no | 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example is below.
Q: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
A: yes
Rationale: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: I've always had a female doc, for some reason my parents thought it would calm me down as a kid, it did ,. As an adult I've always had a woman as my PCP , if youre getting your junk handled, might as well be by a woman.
A: | no | 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
instruction:
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].
question:
That's what racists say about India's space programme or anything progressive we do. The above action doesn't even cost anything or take away time or money from other actions. Why is it so burning for you?
answer:
no
question:
Cope, pedo. Cope.
answer:
yes
question:
Amber Heard looked like the stripper that was wifed up by a millionaire who was too old to know any better
answer:
| yes
| 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example Input: r/legaladvice sounds pretty rad to me though, idk if people are annoying enough to farm karma there. People go through tough shit to help bail out fellow redditors by looking up laws and stuff
Example Output: no
Example Input: This is why mom doesn't fucking love you
Example Output: yes
Example Input: Tati just ended her career
Example Output: | no
| 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: Ohh you will always be Doing it for free Ohhhh you will never be Compensated monetarily Reddit janny
[A]: yes
[Q]: Meh, I like it better than the alternative: every game **has** to go through Steam. Which realistically will never happen. But if it does, it'd be microsoft forcing their store in Windows, and even then I'll move to Linux.
[A]: no
[Q]: My sides
[A]: | no
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Q: Like she could just buy a ticket herself. They act like expecting a free ticket is not the same as expecting someone to hand you free money.
A: no
****
Q: Get out. I graduated with a major in 3D, had a nice portfolio and got only one bite after 5 years. And that job was severely underpaid and in another state to boot. Changed majors and never looked back. You should get out now before you waste anymore valuable time. No one cares about animators these days unfortunately.
A: no
****
Q: "In 1955, [one researcher] estimated the average yearly incidence of father-daughter incest in the U.S. to be 1-2 cases per million. By 1983, [another researcher] estimated the incidence to be over 1 million, so that by adulthood, approximately 20% of American women and 10% of American men have experienced some form of child sexual abuse. *For the issue of female child molesters, it is still 1955 rather than 2009. "* Theresa Porter, "Woman as Molester; Implications for Society," 2015
A: | no
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[EX Q]: Not sure what point you're trying to make. The differences are obvious, and I'm still not condoning piracy. It's irony; if they really wanted to hurt the game they'd refuse to play it and discourage friends from doing so as well.
[EX A]: no
[EX Q]: TERF's are just feminists who are open about not wanting a way for men to get any of the special privileges that have been opened up however its quite clear that the average feminist also believes that. In areas like sport where a very small amount of the population takes the majority of the earnings/repute/fame (no one really cares about anything but the top 10 or so individuals) they swiftly moved to remove transgender males. I'm sure if M2F transgender becomes a large enough group and makes use of the other privileges those same feminists will swiftly move to do the same thing there.
[EX A]: no
[EX Q]: Not that this is perfectly logical, but there is an argument in saying that people should pay more attention to other problems in the world, like how some of the richest people in the world almost instantly donated hundreds of millions of euros to Notre Dame but cry bloody murder when people talk about them using their money to help people in need...
[EX A]: | yes
| 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
Part 1. 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].
Part 2. Example
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Answer: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Part 3. Exercise
I fucking ***hate*** Italians. So fucking much. I'm sure there are some perfectly pleasant Italian folks out there; but I have yet to meet any.
Answer: | yes | 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Ex Input:
#wypipo good meme
Ex Output:
yes
Ex Input:
And shitty behavior toward men (and other women)
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Of course the admins won't reply to appeals or messages either. Fuck this site, if you're accounts suspended it's pretty much gone, not yours specifically but general
Ex Output:
| no
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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].
Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution: yes
Why? This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
New input: > I searched YouTube for "Katie Bouman" and not only is *that* video the first result, the 10th result was "Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism" im weak lmaaoooo
Solution: | no | 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Example input: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Example output: yes
Example explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: ftm transgender people still get period symptoms iirc, the question you should be asking is "what is the message an article like this is saying" and it's basically crap science. modern usage generally uses gender and sex interchangeably however gender still has valid definitions in biology, sociology, and psychology. when people focus on saying that only ONE definition is the RIGHT definition, honestly i feel like that's just promoting ignorance, but I'm just some assclown on the internet
A: | no | 3 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: *gets banned*
Solution: | no | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
--------
Question: /r/Drama is private again due to admin interference
Answer: no
Question: you gotta buy her food and eat that pussy like a doberman YAASSSS GUURL
Answer: yes
Question: Wow. Fuck all those people. And then Reddit will complain about that kid who got swatted and was killed. They just push this type of behavior.
Answer: | no
| 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
[Q]: The ones we fill with people we've dragged from their homes in Guatemala and Honduras.
[A]: no
[Q]: Looks like it was down on the 18th but came back. There have been people posting links to the site on Twitter in the last 24h but seems to be only the last 3h it's gone done again. It was mentioned in a WaPo article yesterday so maybe it's getting hammered because of that?
[A]: no
[Q]: To play the game. Like, duh. There's a discussion to be had about people never actually buying the game or other negative effects of piracy. But to honestly wonder why someone would prefer to do x at *any time* over doing x at *any time, starting a year from now*, that's just baffling.
[A]: | no
| 5 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
--------
Question: Can someone please tell me what this clip is, it's in like a bunch of webm compilations. But I don't get it.
Answer: no
Question: Watching the left applaud her is like the popular kid in school making a joke that doesn't even make sense but everybody still laughs.
Answer: yes
Question: Mudi should resign!!
Answer: | no
| 7 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
instruction:
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].
question:
>Because it can learn any move, some people began research to see if it is the ancestor of all Pokémon. - Pokemon Crystal it can learn all moves
answer:
no
question:
REEEEEEEEE WHITE PEOPLE
answer:
no
question:
*Pikachu uses Posion Gas* *It's super effective*
answer:
| yes
| 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Q: Imagine thinking you're manly while arguing over which subreddit and father figure replacement is better
A: no
****
Q: Some serious Dunning-Kruger effect right there.
A: no
****
Q: How is it whitewashing if they're still clearly not white?
A: | no
****
| 4 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example is below.
Q: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
A: yes
Rationale: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Q: *Pikachu uses Posion Gas* *It's super effective*
A: | yes | 9 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
>Authoritarians view process as a weapon. What a fantastic fucking inversion. In other words "if you notice democrats using process to punish their political opponents that makes *you* the authoritarian.
no
Seems more like r/offensivememes
no
Dude with the sign is wearing a Misfits shirt...c'mon guy.
| no
| 0 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
Ex Input:
That's fraud
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
Cao cao best warlord.
Ex Output:
no
Ex Input:
God I'm a huge Deus Ex fan and I loved the "Mankind Divided is too political!" stuff from people. Yeah let's go to the non-political roots of the original games, about a super soldier made by an overwhelmingly powerful global CTU that used false flag attacks to justify mass control and circumventing laws, who discovers a plot by the world's richest people to release a virus and use artificial scarcity to make sure only people deemed necessary get the vaccinations requires. It's just great.
Ex Output:
| no
| 1 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
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].
One example: Was Michelangelo straight though? I mean, being a pizza-maniac ninja would indicate so, but... You never know.
Solution is here: yes
Explanation: This text has indentity directed abuse because it is trying to judge sexual orientation of Michelangelo. Hence, the answer is "yes"
Now, solve this: Those poor unfortunate souls. The retarded snark and factoid jabs are really sad.
Solution: | yes | 6 | NIv2 | task108_contextualabusedetection_classification | fs_opt |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 5