input
stringlengths 1.28k
1.67k
| output
sequencelengths 1
1
| id
stringlengths 40
40
|
|---|---|---|
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Crash resistant car designs are created to save lives, guns (though they may occasionally save lives) are primarily weapons, designed to hurt or kill.
Sent2: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-b699dcd3803d4db98112f1c3667566ee |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-e029d2eed79e49938009d23f84a9c17f |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Simple if the gun haters did not want your guns why do gun haters only want gun control laws that law abiding citizens obey and criminals do not?
Sent2: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-9d76c798db454be8bef518c53c749323 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
Sent2: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-ead6c0a9ec874d7a94598298c1b35027 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
Sent2: If this is the case, then gun laws have a provable effect on how 'armed' criminals are - more gun control = less gun-carrying criminals, fact.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-f81169678e1c4484b1a2043a17625b76 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-3bc092569663497082530c21076e8e9d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-77897f6d8a574694bd37b672a194249a |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
Sent2: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-36868db17c6340de9044a950c63838df |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
Sent2: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-8a1808d444574f5ab3e05230e636d3b9 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Do you understand that any proposed gun control law must pass the strict scrutiny test due to the Second Amendment being recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
Sent2: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-0abdac4791544a12a623688a0b5ce474 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-c0e777b63efc4b8d8056b594efb921e5 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: 1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals.
Sent2: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-0e23b5cb76fe4acf98599416740d5875 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gee, maybe if the law abiding had guns they could defend themselves?
Sent2: There is no reason law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves as they are untrained, do not have full knowledge of the law and eventually cause more harm than good by owning such weapons.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-90be6b18aca248efa4fcc0d9b43c063f |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Sent2: You somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-acd630eae4594d96821144742a464daa |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
Sent2: A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-6b2f51db671c4bda935a16dd1fdd7314 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
Sent2: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-77e5dabae4174d32a28c6c8c1a7b5862 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I only support common sense gun control measures, thing such as no guns in schools, no guns on airplanes, background checks for the sale of all firearms, tougher sentences for crimes in which guns are used, etc.
Sent2: Having an age limit on the ability to buy guns is a gun control measure.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-9f0ffc4af5bc48a9b42a755ea0e8310a |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Not only will the criminals still have access to guns, but they will also have the added knowledge that either the person they intend to rob does not have a gun or they are breaking the law.
Sent2: They will not only confiscate the guns, but then charge the owners of those guns for being terrorists.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-c0f8a62ad79e4354af020f9689dc2f52 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-8e4dcb4a724d46048302d668e18eff70 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The gun industry should be protected against lawsuits because criminal gun dealers who sell firearms to child killers are law abiding, model citizens according to the NRA.
Sent2: and who commits crimes, Criminals, so if you take guns away from law abiding citizens insuring that criminals will still be able to get weapons will have more targets to attack because people don't have any defense against criminals.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-11988c03707648a8a140366db1145bde |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: So if its cause people in high crime areas want to buy guns for protection then why do they only want protection against gun murders but not other crimes.
Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-c053580936cb41918a2a950d9cdca270 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Why can a state attach limits "in their own individual RKBA" (such as prohibited concealed carry) that supercede the second amendment- unless the second amendment does not protect concealed carry.
Sent2: It dealt with an individual right and further indentified the limits of that right to be certain that the RKBA provision would not be construed to protect the carrying of concealed weapons.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-ad5c70a9532d42709c33c1b52f984dc1 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-44fe82314dd84473a85d038ae2350764 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: We may therefore conclude that, any reason or purpose for an individual owning a gun, OTHER THAN for a militia, is not provided for under the 2nd Amendment, and that current gun laws for private ownership of guns is mistaken.
Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-9dfafae3ed794d93842a9edc9a016c68 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
Sent2: No, but they might like to challenge the conclusion that states with less strict firearm laws are more often the source of guns used in crimes, in other states, than guns from states with stricter gun laws.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-d7e5f47a87134a25800544cefa117194 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: With the prohibition against releasing firearms trace data to the public at large, we will not know the answer.
Sent2: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-5f625fc19fd047479944b0695a20364e |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns.
Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-10d8c6ca0ba142209beb9ea8cbb30470 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-a11bb2ff4b3944f5b65a6d98cd563c06 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-2c43b8cbcc164dd3a2bbb08ae3992e1b |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
Sent2: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-fefe31f90ced471f968ceda780b80b67 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The second amendment says MILITIAS have the right to carry guns, not private citizens, and that is why the militias are there to protects us and are composed of....private citizens.
Sent2: When you look at this case, SCOTUS is telling us that it believes individual citizens have a right to keep and bear military grade firearms, and that such an armed populace historically formed the backbone for an effective militia.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-ce16448e61124b52b5a472c8801d6f39 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
Sent2: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-b62e895a411c4519bb14c44849f2de9f |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms believe criminals will obey a law stating criminals cannot have guns?
Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-f0c440cd62d24c1ebe37abbb56e9d379 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: If people are smoking themselves to death then that is their business, but if people are murdering each other with guns then there is more reason for government intervention.
Sent2: Yes, that must be the reason why in other developed nations where there are more restrictions on guns less defenseless people are being murdered by criminals.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-7f9d738dbe954c1b84fce2439a129f00 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The police must respect people's Constitutional rights, but this doesn't mean they don't prevent crimes from occurring.
Sent2: So we should take things/ rights away from people because there is a potential they could do criminal things with them?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-dbc95f9cd29a4cf7a97c72fd4ef83a38 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-5902eec7788b45b2b8b706163b9b6965 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: And by the same token the anti-gun crowd believe that honest people can't be trusted, yet criminals can; unless there are laws that reinforce the Second Amendment right, which will make criminals more likely to get a gun.
Sent2: Perhaps once should ask why the majority of people who have challenged gun laws in the courts on Second Amendment grounds have been felons.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-60bb714e272941d4a882a1ad6f018716 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Georgia's concealed carry law has recently been modified to allow permitted gun owners to carry concealed weapons into restuarants, on mass transit, in state parks and other venues previously off limits to any non-law-enforcement weapons.
Sent2: The new law allows legal gun owners with a concealed-carry permit to transport their unloaded weapons in an unlocked glove box or center console, with ammunition close by.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-b572ed3a4567488a92f2bd566b35d67c |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: If guns are banned, the only people who will surrender them are those who commit nearly no gun crime at all.
Sent2: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-8a3f7fb94a97465dad75a769814740c4 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
Sent2: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-270a0e1b4bd0431585e6015695044e3c |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: When you compare the number of gun-related deaths of each country, factoring in population size, rates of legal gun ownership, and number of suicide instances, you'll see that America is very much safer than everywhere else.
Sent2: Canada, Switzerland, Finland and scores of other countries allow for legal gun ownership but don't have a higher number of gun deaths than countries where guns are illegal.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-2dc8e07dcf1e4e8cb655c6787c996b19 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
Sent2: Would the simple fact that criminals and terrorist knowing that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns force the criminals and terrorist to not attack people?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-1ec7aaad41ab425885ef5ea95608e63d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal.
Sent2: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-dd5c33291c1f4222b87b234d41b6db40 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: It's absurd to think that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a right to commit a crime.
Sent2: so the NRA is so stupid to believe that the second amendment means terrorists can tote around assault rifles
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-c420f79ef0fd4cada12e9ceda3ac3e16 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Also once you become an agent of the government you stop having right, you have authorities and you're controlled by the people the Constitution is supposed to protect you against.
Sent2: You somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-02cb3c2fb8ca4567842b02e9e359de20 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Various groups have been unable to show that the criminal use of firearms leads to more deaths than the number of lives that are saved by private and legal gun ownership.
Sent2: Guns are used in friendly and legal competitions, guns put food on peoples table through means of hunting, guns save lives through defensive uses.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-3207437d529e403085447d9c0a69c7fd |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The first part indicates the importance of the militia, the second part illustrates that the people may be part of that well regulated body or not without infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-6453e047351b4603ba89a7725ee021dd |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I see you always use gun crime rates as an argument, are you totally uninterested in other types of violent crimes, what happens when all guns are banned and we only have knife crimes?
Sent2: Using a shotgun or an AK-47 will get the job done, so I don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-b71f8b61e1e94d2794d21a8a565534c3 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Whilst true that guns do not kill people, they provide those with the ability to kill.
Sent2: Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-8d11f36c97644837950f24f41045a234 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I think laws stating that you should not be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes or into schools are examples of common sense gun control laws meant to protect people.
Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-0e5a43c964794b1d9935bb87a130109e |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The manufacturer tells them who the gun was shipped to, the dealer is contacted, and the dealer informs the ATF or the police of who the gun was sold to and when.
Sent2: Rationing guns doesn't stop gun dealers, it makes them invisible to the police.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-5297cb308a74439f9129a96df3361f84 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Sent2: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-1bc7c9296e58409c80a9192783a20d2a |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: People that read the 2nd amend as a militia thing also must think dangerous criminals will obey gun control laws.
Sent2: And I don't think that the second amendment is a good argument against gun control since the federal courts have not recognized gun-control as being offensive to the second amendment.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-ee3c44a4636d4888a615b047f22865bf |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
Sent2: Some studies used against gun have been ones showing that over 50% of homicides in the US are committed with guns, while in countries with gun bans or very strict gun control have a lower amount of gun homicides.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-4ba97c75ec6e4b159b45491d3d16fa07 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden?
Sent2: In particular, does the reader feel that the worthy law enforcement goal of eliminating gun crime justifies the sacrifice of the individual right to keep and bear them?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-e5edf6d792f2411cb55d527ada6224aa |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Various groups have been unable to show that the criminal use of firearms leads to more deaths than the number of lives that are saved by private and legal gun ownership.
Sent2: Canada, Switzerland, Finland and scores of other countries allow for legal gun ownership but don't have a higher number of gun deaths than countries where guns are illegal.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-1ad66d87b1554c4a98d13da016c567b9 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Sent2: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-7984c5cea9544decaa210570764ae518 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
Sent2: You would rather be confronted by a guy with a baseball bat because you are FAR more likely to get killed by the guy with the gun.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-84a3e3fe241a4c0dad24c7dedcecc3b1 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
Sent2: By that brand of logic, any gun law is specifically aimed at reducing criminal use of guns, including a complete ban.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-8429bc4d27dc4c17a2cbcd133c507d8d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: However, in doing so, people also found out that the AR series were more accurate for hunting and target shooting, and a much more reliable design than previous hunting rifles.
Sent2: Many people who would never dream of shooting a person can own a gun simply for the artistry of a well made machine, people hunt with guns as well.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-92da4de16eb5463a8b1ec727ed5b8520 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
Sent2: Crime rates equals criminals which means if guns are illegal, they must be getting them from somewhere, hmmm, i wonder where, black market or illegal selling across borders anyone?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-fa32fef1d153438385007b36511fe4e7 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
Sent2: There is no debate as none of you have offered evidence that in Australia it's illegal to use your firearms in self-defense.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-2120b34ced294644af18ae593d2c344e |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Therefore, while most people are hindranced by the laws, criminals will still obtain weapons illegally.
Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-2ec971084c5940c8b25158b4e9d3b2ba |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Another point that isn't taken in consideration in the stats that I've seen is that guns are used in self-defense but it still goes down as "gun violence."
Sent2: The question is whether or not it really matters if guns were used less for self defense and more for aggression.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-bd84fcb798ef4b2bb794e19a84c059ca |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.
Sent2: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-e6bd3c3e3a6a4d1d8bb4f518718c9b1d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Sent2: Though I think we're gun obsessed in our culture, and a lot of times, we can defend ourselves more effectively without guns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-50c9e61433ea43c192628226ea5c9596 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: We tell them what was meant when the law passed, but even these gun owners do not care what was meant, they only care what the law says!
Sent2: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-8685e8aaa81a49589bc7c91598cd10c9 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: If guns are banned, there will obviously be less guns in circulation.
Sent2: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-48e9f7113e0e4949b710e923174ef4d0 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Sent2: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-300c0cee401348a09fd7c31b7b80e3ad |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Your attempt to use rates of BJS to prove gun deaths, which have actually gone down despite huge increases of guns, fell flat as it has remained flat or decreased while other weapons were used in 2/3rds of the crimes.
Sent2: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-f279405ac1ba417d8db80ada51dbe402 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
Sent2: (i.e. restrictions on concealed carry, laws against brandishing) but we can not ban the carrying of arms altogether since that would violate the second amendment.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-95c4e69b6105456093906955006ad431 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I feel like existing laws need to actually be enforced and new ones targeted at those they are created for and not at legal law abiding gun owners.
Sent2: However, I do feel that there should be very strict laws on who can purchase assault weapons.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-9b8d97f72a8c464ea190a5b4dd1f5d21 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
Sent2: You can debate that without guns there would be more deaths to other weapons although you can't debate it would be to the same extent as gun murders and crimes would be.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-590623447e7a44c38b469b948bfd4d61 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Similarly, a company will still face civil liability in addition to criminal penalties if it has violated state or federal law or sold a gun knowing that it would be used to commit a crime.
Sent2: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-683c156f28614401866a5605c3df864b |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: We didn't ban all guns, just most of them, because our farmers need them and our police need them.
Sent2: Do you expect us to do it with single shot rifles and BB guns, because the government found that our handguns and AR-15s aren't suitable for civilian ownership and banned them?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-dd9ad25b75364b6c957a955ac29a437c |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Criminals and terrorist are going to have all the guns they want no matter how many security measures enacted to disarm the law-abiding citizen by people such as you.
Sent2: Would the simple fact that criminals and terrorist knowing that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns force the criminals and terrorist to not attack people?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-e7a2c535911f4be8b56816cdab9d055c |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: In my state, home burglary is a felony punished by a maximum sentence of 1-20 years, unless the burglar is armed with a deadly weapon when he breaks in, which increases the punishment to 20 years to life.
Sent2: If the burglar is armed with any deadly weapon (knife, crowbar, gun, etc) then the sentence range is not less than 20 years up to life imprisonment.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-c686ce6c71064e4997fca457ffd77130 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The problem is that widespread guns means greater criminal access to guns which means greater criminal gun use which means bad things.
Sent2: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-43cb72bef4644835ab935a803d4c2250 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars.
Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-1ac1323174394ae49f015de84c7038a1 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns because law-abiding citizens obey the law about gun free zones.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-1f212297f15f4f999afc906f71ff2ec2 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: However, I can understand that people can use guns for recreation, hunting and sport.
Sent2: Guns are used in friendly and legal competitions, guns put food on peoples table through means of hunting, guns save lives through defensive uses.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-c41aed5c1eb54404a966cf1f58e60930 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-4cec6a671ae445af9f83df3a486b4cf9 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun prohibitionists argue that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms only on duly enrolled members of a state militia.
Sent2: Yeah, thing is that the second ammendment makes the point that guns should be allowed because a _well organised militia_ is an important tool for a nation.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-5f0faadf0c99442088aa415d4cc37de6 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: I don't think it's so much the media as the fact that no one is used to seeing people with guns, so when they do they assume they are in the middle of a combat zone.
Sent2: Machine guns are not in common use so I see no reason to believe restrictions on them would be lifted based on the ruling.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-4cfe7ac4baef409e995c76b447cca6bf |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: There's no evidence to prove the believe that when guns are less available, less criminals will be armed than if guns were more readily available.
Sent2: I have a better theory as to why there's a supposed smaller availability of guns to criminals in the UK; because there are less people and obviously fewer guns were ever made or imported to begin with.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-808502d819f84a2aa272f6cba9d44ad0 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Even if today's well-regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Sent2: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-340c3f186cf44fd8a1edd0f92f231960 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: The first part indicates the importance of the militia, the second part illustrates that the people may be part of that well regulated body or not without infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
Sent2: In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-56e9d4dfaf9148aa86176b8b5199f819 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-872f671ba9584aa986e5a6dae1e4044b |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
Sent2: Ok, so are the gun haters claiming the police department are giving the guns criminals use for crime back to the criminals?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-a5e474a9c52943699183a987c852c438 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Do you understand that any proposed gun control law must pass the strict scrutiny test due to the Second Amendment being recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-5275bc57984f4f5ba14061d65d99d148 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: It doesn't appear that gun control laws nor a strong government can stop gang nor criminal activity in any country, India nor Mexico.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-e381224748f546cc9c55756f7a85da7c |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: In the Miller case, the court essentially ruled that the second ammendment does indeed convey an individual right, but that the right in question is dependant on the type of weapon (i.e must be suitable for military use).
Sent2: Basically, The US Curcuit Court upheld that the Second Amendment didn't apply to weapons that couldn't be carried by an individual.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-935ec0dda5124e3a8794bf45fa12fb0d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide."
Sent2: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-8e0801058d9940c98182402d066fe16c |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Guns are dangerous even though when they are banned people will still make them people think that they will still use them less people will use them less deaths will be by guns.
Sent2: Whilst true that guns do not kill people, they provide those with the ability to kill.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-e9ad70b6c4b04350b769bb59acbc018d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
Sent2: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-5e7e1029aa944309a0ece2563696faf4 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Sent2: Simple if gun haters want people defending the right to bear arms to be in militias, why would you want the militias to have lesser weapons then the enemies they are defending against?
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-7592a6ce0f324a25be75971379432316 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
Sent2: So if you support every amendment made to the constitution pertaining to guns, than I submit your not to interested in owning a gun.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-9bdb4213363245c3b6e2164580ad9dbc |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Gun hater pilot's lack of logic is to not allow law abding citizens the right to bear arms, and do nothing to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens.
Sent2: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-120b98ab10294c469e0aeb914758cd4d |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Supporting gun control to stop violent criminals, is like supporting a ban on cameras to stop child pornography.
Sent2: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
Output:
| [
"Similar"
] | task146-df7caf97d7d247c5a59265bef2f25aa7 |
Definition: We would like you to classify each of the following sets of argument pairs (discussing Gun Control) into either SIMILAR or NOT SIMILAR. A pair of arguments is considered SIMILAR if the arguments are about the same FACET (making the same argument), and is considered NOT SIMILAR if they do not have the same FACET. A FACET is a low level issue that often reoccurs in many arguments in support of the author's stance or in attacking the other author's position.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Sent2: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
Output: Not similar
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Sent1: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Negative Example 1 -
Input: Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Now complete the following example -
Input: Sent1: Now when you rightfully talk about how the 2nd amendment grants me the right to own a gun people won't take you seriously because you think the 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.
Sent2: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
Output:
| [
"Not similar"
] | task146-2dcc278a6cbd4fd9a4851941f2a637e4 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Dataset Card for Natural Instructions (https://github.com/allenai/natural-instructions) Task: task146_afs_argument_similarity_gun_control
Additional Information
Citation Information
The following paper introduces the corpus in detail. If you use the corpus in published work, please cite it:
@misc{wang2022supernaturalinstructionsgeneralizationdeclarativeinstructions,
title={Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks},
author={Yizhong Wang and Swaroop Mishra and Pegah Alipoormolabashi and Yeganeh Kordi and Amirreza Mirzaei and Anjana Arunkumar and Arjun Ashok and Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran and Atharva Naik and David Stap and Eshaan Pathak and Giannis Karamanolakis and Haizhi Gary Lai and Ishan Purohit and Ishani Mondal and Jacob Anderson and Kirby Kuznia and Krima Doshi and Maitreya Patel and Kuntal Kumar Pal and Mehrad Moradshahi and Mihir Parmar and Mirali Purohit and Neeraj Varshney and Phani Rohitha Kaza and Pulkit Verma and Ravsehaj Singh Puri and Rushang Karia and Shailaja Keyur Sampat and Savan Doshi and Siddhartha Mishra and Sujan Reddy and Sumanta Patro and Tanay Dixit and Xudong Shen and Chitta Baral and Yejin Choi and Noah A. Smith and Hannaneh Hajishirzi and Daniel Khashabi},
year={2022},
eprint={2204.07705},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.CL},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07705},
}
More details can also be found in the following paper:
@misc{brüelgabrielsson2024compressserveservingthousands,
title={Compress then Serve: Serving Thousands of LoRA Adapters with Little Overhead},
author={Rickard Brüel-Gabrielsson and Jiacheng Zhu and Onkar Bhardwaj and Leshem Choshen and Kristjan Greenewald and Mikhail Yurochkin and Justin Solomon},
year={2024},
eprint={2407.00066},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={cs.DC},
url={https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00066},
}
Contact Information
For any comments or questions, please email Rickard Brüel Gabrielsson
- Downloads last month
- 1