input
stringlengths 1.38k
2.38k
| output
sequencelengths 1
1
| id
stringlengths 41
41
|
|---|---|---|
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: BS.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-7cb4ad3461a447c2b84d84061ba35440 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: The writer did not mention illegal immigration. If you are referring to the writer's characterization of Trump as a racist, there are more factors here than his over-the-top approach to that problem; specifically, his completely reprehensible proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country. Maybe "racist" isn't the best word; I prefer "xenophobic".
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-73bcffcbc27b48cc8afd71ea2988e48f |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Afraid your boss has fed you some erroneous talking points. The demo leadership controlled the aca poop from start to finish. It was them that killed the single payer under pressure of the lobbiests writing the bill for them. Don't put out lies. I realize the demo mantra is say it enough and it will become the truth but America is sick and tired of your crap. That's why you have hate and dicontent in your and the republican ranks this cycle. Now who controlled the house and senate and Whitey house when you passed the aca? Explain Russ, how the repubs stopped anything.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-ed4eaa36c6604beda30fe60ce15996af |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I don't see the McKinnon Road cut, Su Hydro cut, KABATA cut, Ambler gambler cut, legi staff cut, the TajMahawker cut, the silly arse Medicaid law suit cut nor the "parking garage fund loop hole plugged. Neither do I see a path forward that does not keep draining the savings accounts, just the same drunken oil soaked clowns in the oil driven clown car careening down the road. Go back and do what you are elected and obligated to do.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f64d7b0410e24126b86790961639ca97 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Speaking of moronic bags of wind Kohler and I are getting along famously!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-a31fd55ef0db4bab8a676bdc05bffa1b |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: GCI can't wait to get their grubby paws on the Permanent Fund. It's pretty sickening.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-348c2b57208f4b8d87a1a7085b998c72 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Interesting letter Jay Cross, perpetuating the liberal lie that republicans are racists, etc. That has been the province of the democratic part since before the civil war, extending all the way into the 70's. While republicans have been the party championing civil rights for the same time period and even through today.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-7406b30ee6b6408fa2385962654b4c62 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Let's be clear here. Alaskans don't "believe the state" is on the wrong track. They KNOW that our legislators are on the wrong track. Especially the ones in control of the legislature, the majority. Governor Walker is the only one who has 'manned up' and demonstrated leadership during these tough times.
Soon it'll be the voters' turn to stand up and toss these weak fools out of office.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-16bead8d7fc7454f9004f47e10218127 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: That is not true, why are you lying?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0d7a65ec6b2c4a9397a5b05fc1568615 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Let's go with the Ducks Unlimited platform. They hunt, well, ducks. The organization acknowledges that first people also enjoy having the wild ducks and the importance the species has in the habitat. Second, that all can enjoy ducks by either viewing them or hunting them or both. Ducks Unlimited acknowledges that to view, hunt or enjoy both one has to have ducks to look at or eat. Ducks Unlimited has a main focus and that is to raise awareness and money needed to maintain duck habitat and to educate the public about the habitat that is needed to keep ducks living and reproducing. Hunting is also a conservation tool that is used to manage a species. My opinion is that wildlife can be managed successfully in Alaska for all the user groups and is because all the groups share one thing in common, the use of our wildlife in a wise way that will insure that needed habitat is maintained and a certain number of healthy animals remain in that habitat. (OK, I have told the BOG that in person.)
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-12382f93fe0546f49717c73040a95bf3 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Medicaid expansion is a boondoggle, but we need to expand it to educate everyone as to what a failure it will be. The newly "covered" Medicaid folks will not have much access to physicians or specialists. ER visits will go up and hospitals will get paid a bit for what was formerly charity work. Let it go! Expand it. It won't do what its supporters claim but you can't tell them anything. Let it go!
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-bfaa53cff3524565a4d1e899a6437c93 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: The moral is don't fall asleep in the vil.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-009243e0e78e4f0e8391e200cef61fbb |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: For your information home schooled fair WAY better than Public school children (proven Fact), you STUPID libtards took GOD out and put Transsexuals and Pedophiles in. THERE IS NOT one day that I dont read about another teacher molesting students, HELL its an epidemic. So you can keep your transgender bathrooms and Pedophiles in the school, and Ill keep my NORMAL students OUT!!!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-ef3a1017c1474b94bc37991a52742ed2 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: And it will not stay small for long if they get their hands into your wallet then the sky is the limit for them and possible poverty for us.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-7ba1a6d8ed1145cca3de9c93f2ec76a0 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: How is giving me $1 worth of property tax relief, and then turning around and taking that $1 back in the form of a sales tax, going to benefit me?
The people always banging the drum for a Muni sales tax are the BIG commercial property owners. They will pay far less in taxes and shift the burden to the citizens. They will get millions in property tax relief and pay very little in sales taxes.
The owner of the Dimond Center is one of the biggest boosters of a Muni sales tax. Also, think how much ConocoPhillips and BP will save on their Anchorage office towers.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-8591e4f5a5ad4282a5c25d568e485b1b |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: My Uncle Lucas recently got an awesome six-month old Mercedes S-Class S65 AMG only from working online
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ + http://www.factoryofincome.com
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-a0d03b321a104ecc883b2cd11cbf7f16 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: ASD is far from being considered to have "very high costs" by those who are actually interested in being factual, which we know the Alaska Policy Forum, is not.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-3662098367044423b310eeb5f8cfeb5b |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Dramatic much? I've been using cannabis for over thirty years, since I was a teenager. How do you explain my master's degree, twenty years teaching full time, own a house and cabin, don't drink alcohol or use pharmaceuticals. Alcohol is the real killer; I have had students die, kill people while driving, and end up in rehab because of booze. Don't be an idiot.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-77ae122c0aaf4d1b804fbcc146dacbea |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: "David Strahan -- Homeless Camp Support:
Please help debunk the myth that the homeless leave messes. This is a picture yesterday of where members of OUR COMMUNITY lived. A dead end, unused by anyone except those without homes. Before the recent group of harassed homeless left here they and their supporters cleaned this area of all the garbage that was left there by others. The only remaining trash belongs to mean spirited city employees who posted no camping signs."
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
fbid=10207820705691146&set=gm.774911695974543&type=3&theater
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-9a4dad494edc4c2ca6036b2d1b377a5f |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I think we need another City Manager...perhaps the man
from Austin who applied for the job is still available. Austin
is such a beautiful city with award-winning community design.
I hope that The Council has started looking.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-31e849a7e40a4e7b9762c6b84bf37d60 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I find it incredible how dozens of commenters are all of the sudden economic and oil industry experts.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-083318ce2f2d4a71937e3123d1462064 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: 'never wise up a chump.'
- w.c. fields
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f0f2c997c4e24b6496c86a977ad4208d |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: What an insensitive and self serving comment in the time of a national tragedy.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-2a499f29949843febcd17abe83099fb0 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Fair enough but then why post it on public media?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-c174d09349894aeabf9c326d0b52f06e |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: The tax credit and net profit system needs to be dumped.
Go back the the gross tax. A flat tax based on the gross sales with no deductions. It's like our complicated irs tax system now. No one can understand it and both sides need accountants to try and get the most money they can. The oil companies always win in a net tax system.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-1f8f1c72ac9c4909b50692d9d63b5579 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I had a very similar experience as you Cari which leads me to believe there are likely many more.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0118d80c47024c3083bbcbc6347fdd34 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Careful reading would show who introduced the word encourage into the conversation, thus saving you the trouble of thinking someone else did it. The good news is, even if the Springfield city council approves this ordinance, you'll still be able to give as much and as often as you wish to each and every panhandler you encounter when visiting that fair city. You'll just have to get out of your car to do it, or park and hail the stranded soul to approach your car. Should that inconvenience trump your quotient for compassion, you could always just throw the money on the ground and continue on your way, confident that your handout will be scooped up and save you the possible littering fine. By the way, those of us who don't live in Springfield really don't have any business telling those who do how to conduct theirs.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-08bef06f8c644c128023e80267c4fb14 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I am SO qualified for any one of the guvvy jobs that offer paid administrative leave. I am happy to stay home, enjoy direct deposit, and would milk it for as long as possible.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-42882bb1397b4019a966f0c1d454d66c |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Motley would undoubtedly blame the father too, but there's no mention of him in the story........
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-14f0393a312046f496fab1e9302baa6a |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Don Young is a perfect example of what got the Trump bandwagon going in the first place. Somehow they convince their voters that everything is the fault of Obama and the Democrats. So they put them in power and they find out that nothing changes. They use their ignorant voters to get them into office and then desert them. I laugh every night watching the nightly news where the GOP is doing all in their power to stop Trump, the guy they created in the first place. Now they are going to lose the presidency, the Senate and the House. Could not happen to a nicer group of lying scumbags.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-059d12fb2a5144ba8812b584a6e43383 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: "President Obama has pretty much destroyed our country."
Could you give us some particulars? Like how he saved us from the Great Bush Recession of 2008-10, lowered the unemployment rate, killed bin Laden, more than halved the deficit, reversed Bush's shameful foreign policies and improved our image world-wide... The list goes on and on, Mr. Lynch. Please think about what you write before you put it in the paper.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-fc4d0dd944054efdb3573f944e8a7694 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Eliminate OK for sleeping on streets overnight. Provide space overnight in parking garages. Provide a few porto-potties there. Have a police patrol check the garage nightly.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-18df5ab11bd74ed5aa7c3f635d28c705 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Who is John Gault??? :)
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f7efaee7e6df4ca49da8e376b8c2c1df |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Show a picture of this piece of crap.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-c364fcf1248a439b8b9e2f286e1ee8d7 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Calling the liberals on their crap? Exactly, very good comment.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-74317001f4f54c7982e83eb5776225e6 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Mr. Black, I read about southern white people who would say virtually the same thing as you during the civil rights era. They would say that Black people in the south were perfectly happy being treated barely better than slaves and who were the civil rights workers to come down there and rile them up with ideas that they were equal with whites and entitled to vote and an education and things like that? So Natives in Canada, (and here in Alaska too???) should just learn to accept their station in society and be happy and not get depressed about it? Common argument from the dominant group in any society. The ones who lack compassion anyway.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-5a63b5ffd78e41c2b313acb9ba2c7d28 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Ed, I see you're convinced. I'm not because I can do math.
1.5% income tax represents $36 a month from my paycheck. That's 6 fewer meals with meat for my family, a tank of gasoline, a month's membership at the rock climbing club my son loves. Or about 4 hours extra work for me to offset the lost income and the taxes associated with working those extra hours.
You see, for the average person, that money comes out of their paycheck FIRST and they don't get it back (if they get it back at all) until May. Our bills come in 52 weeks out of the year, so for 51 weeks out of the year, we'd have to do something to offset that lost income. I'm sure there are people in Alaska who get paid well enough that $40 a month is no big deal to them, but I'm also equally sure that many Alaskans are in the same boat I am. That money represents a line item in our budget that either must be funded or not, but will be felt.
And that's if the tax is only 1.5%. I've heard 6%, 15%, and 30% on offer.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-e2958c3072924fdc8c95ec61f8ecfba6 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: A representative Democracy,only to oil and gas. The voters have an illusion of a representative democracy. How many voters are willing to give up their pfd, income and take an income tax so we can pay oil companies to sell and make money off our oil, while our representative prom kings and queens are shopping for new real estate.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-7affff59bda744b39a197c628b647976 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: The ignorance and hatred on this thread is appalling. Liberals never bother to check anything out. They think they know it all. All they do is insult and call those that disagree with childish names. They have no tolerance for anyone with an opposing views. They would gladly vote for a candidate that had had over 3 decades of well documented corruption and scandals. They are ignorant and proud of it.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-23bf5d6bdd6340958a2c96fc50e66e8f |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: You call Stewart's comments "ignorance" and call him "stupid" but fail to inform us what exactly he said that was untrue. What are "the facts" that Stewart supposedly tried to dispel? Closing a comment with "Peace and Love!" doesn't erase your rather hateful comments toward Stewart.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-9579bda87d274dec85b4ef5fa91320b8 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I'd like to announce that I cannot support Jeb Bush. Neither he or his brother George Walker Bush have done our country any favors.
Look at GW's record and the top of his list of 'accomplishments' include a war that has lasted fifteen years.... so far. An Economic collapse that he was lucky enough to pass off on his successor. And last but not least, the largest expansion in the size and power of government ever.
And these guys want us to think that they are 'conservative'?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f39ef9a13a354cf68b7478eab17f3cf7 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Good column, Mike. No incumbents! Please, Someone from Nikiski run against Boss Hawg Chenault? He's got the whole district cowed. There are so many tweakers in his district, the only way to get them to vote is a meth-lab polling place! The rest are oilies. Oh, and then there's the Commercial Fishermen who are trying to scratch out a living, too busy to run. C'mon, Nikiski? Is there no fervent Alaskan among you with enough cajones to challenge The Neighborhood Bully??
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-89ccbc303b064d41b17f8bc9a2e0053e |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: According to the author of the article "As a board member, Aaberg pushed the idea of leasing the right for fishing lodges to take boats on the Iliamna River. The village owned 80 percent of it, but a couple of dozen lodges were crowding it with sportfishing clients. The corporation limited use to three boats a day and made the lodges bid for that privilege."
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-4d26eb7e389a4627822248cf444d3d69 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: it was Republicans that recognized " Hope, & Change" as nothing more than a empty slogan for the simple of mind.
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American ( Democrat )Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#4d452232779b
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-2f4e1f04a6c3499b85a57660ca767dfd |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Because its hate against White people. Only works if you are a minority, gay ect....ever hear of the WET (White entertainment tv) nope, not politically correct but its ok to have the BET (Black entertainment tv). How about the NAAWP( national association for the advancement of White people) nope, not politically correct but the NAAACP (national association for the advancement of Colored people) is OK. How about the congressional Black caucus...OK but its a no no to have a congressional White caucus. Its politically correct to hate White people, nothing racist about it.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-92102a73ed4e4859af25dc7277a81463 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: You're right. I hadn't considered how the right to private property and protection against unreasonable search and seizure is BS. Thanks for enlightening me.
Sarcasm aside; with a "put these idiots afoot as bear bait" and "I would do that in a heartbeat" attitude, thank you for leaving the police service. The force is better for it. The state should work to improve the situations that encourage reckless driving on the highway, but allowing police officers that much latitude doesn't respect the Constitutional right to the due process of law. You don't get to play judge and jury.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-596ebbb8203645f7837baa08e41bd624 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Amarcas, this guys where cut loose by somebody else, why don't you go after that/those idiots and leave this guy alone?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-bb56b55d876e4dde93f4e72be3dedf59 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Trolls don't have to stay under the Bridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Troll
"If mushers should not be concerned about the welfare of their dogs then this sport is in a lot of trouble," she wrote. "I hope anyone that thinks this gets out of dogs. For this line he should apologize."
"When the dogs show up the season is over." Ray Paddock
http://www.adn.com/dog-mushing/article/iditarod-notebook-schandelmeiers-scratching-scuffle-leads-online-fire/2015/02/14/
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-3f0108cefee3409a9bc6466114d051f0 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Right. Do they have a smart phone with all the bells & whistles? Cable or dish tv? A couple computers? A newer model car? All those things that are NOT necessities? People whine they barely make it but dint cut back on expenses. As I said, I work 2 jobs so can they. No sympathy.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f3f0335db5734420bd2d4e06038a9dc0 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Young sez: restrict the availability of information about environmental impact statements to individuals and entities, like tribes and state and local governments, who live in the "affected area." What kind of crap is that? Republican crap!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-18f32885a6ee41b2bdb61d424e58dec2 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: One more example of utter stupidity spread through massive funding by corporate greed merchants willing to condemn all of humanity to eradication for one more dollar of profit. The spokesperson offered is so unknowledgeable about anything as to be exposed, time and again, as one who is unable to understand how stupid her utterances are. National media owned and controlled by similar corporate greed headline the stupidity without conscience or journalist integrity of any kind. Citizenry brainwashed into retaining the corporate agents in governing seats to maintain the status quo of ignorance and denial. Meanwhile the entire governing system is in gridlock to prevent any move to alleviate the ills plaguing humanity.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-95cea1a2b91e464295b61d639964d318 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: But don't you want us to kill a lot more terrorist? It's clear Obama has no taste for an occupying war, and he won't carpet bomb. What's a good American to do?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-8e7a87f7391e4d259901184ef630af2b |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I am tired of the argument that you could fire all state employees and the would still be a deficit... what a stupid comment... about as informative and relevant as this: "You could tax 100% of income, sales and sin and you would not come close to governments appetite to waste money."
Alaska's government is bloated, excessive and wasteful. Like a goldfish grows to the size of its environment, the budget grew to the amount of oil that was produced. I appreciate the Senators attitude and diligence in their efforts... They have been around this block before, unfortunately, our greenhorn Governor has no idea what he is doing. Governor, huff and puff all you like, have your press tantrums, but there are three branches of government... Fortunately!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f4d14ba253cf4939a3ae1d5ad53eca26 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: All religion evolved from ancient mythology. Can't stop evolution, but "separation of church and state" can keep religious superstition at bay. I hope :)
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-59dac05b17e340c494ff6d3952cf234a |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: How does building facilities like these in an area that has historic risk for devastating tectonic activity make any sense? Do you live in one of these communities Gary? I have family living in the Coos Bay area, and though the short term financial gains to a select few sure wouldn't hurt in that town, the reality is just that - most of the Oregonians having to live with whatever happens to develop these facilities in their community, will not benefit.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-b34100641d9b4d68aec1a5000c34212e |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: GE made all meeting members stand. Amazing the decisions made, the compromises, and how short the meeting time became.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-b62a2a18121d427784c13dfde96de298 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: OK Democrats, if you want to turn the Legislature into a Democrat majority, then you have to knock of this idiotic wait and see at the end of session game. Yes you do need to show Alaskans how you would lead the state out of it's Republican majority fiscal cliff. Stop the hemming and hawing and get on with your fiscal plan proposals. I want to see a 5-year plan. Fiscal planning can always be tweaked.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-a7e41c70e555447798058f58e3e23a27 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: yet another example of a rich scumbag thinking he cam buy the world . I feel so sorry for this kid.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-39fbcef650d24d9d8e4f35c80f348160 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Chris perhaps she is not "vested" in the community and has no desire to be. Just perhaps. Possibly she just wants to live somewhere different for a few years to have a different experience. That seems quite acceptable to me. Ah but that might sound shallow to some....
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-bcdd3e56495642458df9ab9e38558c09 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Why the Rep's out? It's the Governors plan, vote him out if you don't like it. He also wants an income tax as well.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-ec98261b44574ba49b5c934ee921ad8b |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I will address only the concern of the incubation spaces. Ideas can generate in garages, but now, with many cities across the nation offering such resources (collaborative inspiration environments), they no longer have to. They can just move to others cities that have them. Creating these allows Eugene (as a community) to get our share of the jobs and wealth created by these companies. Fledgling companies already can get access to these resources, just nott here. What you portray as selfish I consider to be enlightened self interest. I am working to create opportunity in Eugene. I could certainly do what I am doing elsewhere. Is this what you suggest I (we) do? On the workforce development issues, I can go into that as well but the space in these comments section is limited. Let me know if you are actually interested and I will add more detail as well as expand upon topics I touched on.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-b958254ec7c949fb966b0fe223c9642c |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: What part of deficit, no money, we need cuts, layoffs, oil moving out of state, do these people not understand? Their own $30,000 report states that we will save money by dropping the current lease and moving to a building already owned by the state. Should be a simple decision MOVE!
Seems they are not interested in the fact that the majority of Alaskans want them out of the building and they are thumbing their upper crust noses at the very same people that put them in office.
This is what happens when people do not care about who runs this place and sit watching TV or on Face book rather than taking the time to educate themselves on the issues and people that will run their lives… Oh and not to mention that voting is a major inconvenience to the busy lives of 60% of Alaskans.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-dbcfc99ceb3042959178a849d2778bb6 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Excuse me, what did any of you have to do with implementing the permanent fund? Keep hands off "your" permanent fund? God forbid you pay taxes for roads, schools, police & fire protection. This state has come a long long way in the almost 40 years since "Oil In" Day (1977). None of that money is "yours". Look at the property taxes paid in the lower 48 and then look at yours. I was here when we got rid of the State Income Tax and the School Tax and it was minimal. Suck it up and be a real Alaskan. Or freaking go home.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-532b75119a944b2f8e6bd0ecfc574d2a |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: It was a tongue in cheek remark, Frederick Minshall. Thus ending the sentence with .......
Someone had chided Shannyn's use of 'ammosexual' as being name calling, and they quit reading her article at that point, because of it.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-e77bc86abfa241a39c2d40c42f31ad4d |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Damm, read a lot of comments, some were on point, some were just political, some even referenced san fran, guess they were talking about anch being a sanctuary city also, plus all the hand outs at the parks, well the point is, the OWNERS of these planes earned those tires, and the vec's that sat on top of them, they worked for them, I know because I have never found a free one yet, I hope they catch them, prosecute them and lets see what our criminal system does, I have $100.00 that says, these are poor misguided souls and nothing happens, because we are a soft , kind hearted people, sorry bastards,,,
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f99ee22fe44f42f88b0f8eb0fad4eeaa |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: re: Dirksen - You prefer his "careful" approach? You mean his climate denying? His unwillingness to take a more forthright approach to our region dealing with climate change? To move forward on alternative transportation options? And I suppose this means you want careful movement on urban growth and other Metro-related issues; golly, we can't move too fast, gotta be careful. Don't want to act as soon as possible on these issues.
Rosenthal is a scientist and someone who has worked with government enough to know how to move forward in a strong, productive manner. Metro could really use him. But you prefer someone who is "careful" while demanding other offices be filled by the kind of bold leadership you reject in this race?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f486956a82fd4af6b6b8b80880083611 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Michael Bloomberg is watching the Trump and Bernie clown cars. If Bloomberg enters the Presidential race there will be another choice available.
But beware--if Bloomberg wins a state or two, and no one gets the necessary electoral votes to be the President, the Republican House of Representatives gets to choose the new president. They can choose anyone they they please.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-79bc433c78f64223862efea7eda54eb3 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: "the stated purpose of the superdelegate system is to tilt the playing field away from candidates who aren’t approved by the establishment."
Where was that stated? And keep in mind that the superdelegates have always supported the candidate with the most pledged delegates which in this case is Ms. Clinton.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6a66e97c53a048419441a1bf6f1ca0c4 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: shot his legs out from under him? don't make me laugh
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-7d0f67f1e25544b392f9fb7186859b32 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: you have my vote! Those idiots in Juneau, I wonder who voted against this unnecessary stupid law.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-5807e857994f4b0eae9bef0ebc416f15 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I agree, "You cannot reason with people void of intelligence, logic, and reason."
That's why I choose not to "answer my (your) questions", as you insist. When you don't get your way, you remind me of a conflicted Art Robinson with a rusty switchblade, ready to defeat "them", whoever they may be.
Meanwhile..."Since 1989, the McKenzie River Trust has acquired or won voluntary conservation easements to protect more than 4,500 acres of rivers, farms and forests..."
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-8877a318d5a442d58d2cb79598bf4f69 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: You can email Gov. Walker at the link below and let him know you will stand with his decision to veto this atrocity.
http://aws.state.ak.us/CrmForms/Home/Feedback
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0cf012088051490293557e09cd93ca09 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I agree with the writer's assessment of the sad state of current affairs.
Politics is a bloodsport.
Alaska Governor Bill Walker won with the support of the general population. He promoted a fiscal plan that fairly spread the pain of the fiscal crisis. He wrote it in pencil. He solicited input. He marched it around the state. He got broad public support. The cornerstone of his plan is fairness. I know this first hand; I spoke to him about it myself.
Then, the Body, which created the fiscal mess, comes back with SB128- putting the fiscal burden on every man, woman, and CHILD in the state. PFD reform is not a good stand alone answer. The public will not abide a PFD raid; perceived or real!
To make matters worse, the Governor applauds the enemy when he needs to go right back for support to his strongest constituency, the general public and demand a better fiscal plan.
This constitutes a sad political strategy to shift the blame from the GOP, to the governor.
Paybacks are a bitch
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-207b90a92e37410ea18b44da9be85bb7 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: The Western Kenai Peninsula underwent major logging prescriptions for "salvage logging" using fire as the excuse and basis of fear to move this forward with few safeguards for the rest of the ecosystem. Water sampling parameters were taken for many years showing water temperature increases. The areas opened up became hot spots. They also became deserts in the winter for moose with no cover. The Forest Practices Act had a 66 foot buffer which of course does nothing to cool water temperatures and most of this blows down. The Forest Health Initiative in 1993 alluded to the fact that during the Pot Hole lake fire the spruce Bark Beetle trees actually slowed the path of fire. It declared the cure is worse than the disease.
The Timber Task Force and the State foresters on the other hand pushed hard using scare tactics to open logging as fast as possible. Circle D E came in along with other small operators, bringing their own workers...they went bankrupt. Alaska once again lost.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-876bf44eb4914dd4b3b101ab8a0c5fc2 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: _"[Conte] didn’t say whether he was referring to the fact that she’s the first woman nominated by a major political party, or that she’s the first nominee who’s being actively investigated by the FBI ..."_
I assumed most folks had the intelligence to understand. Guess McCall is an exception.
-- Paul
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-8f4562d0c8d544d7bce340bf630e1bc4 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Even if eating meat gave us immortality, I feel unnecessarily ending the life of another precious living being is immoral. The law is on your side at the moment but denying women and people of color equal rights, for example, was legal at one time as well. The issue here is you feel your happiness and life is more important than the many lives of other animals that you are killing. I doubt the life of any human is worth the unnecessary suffering and death of our animal friends. The key word there is"unnecessary" and in almost every case killing others is now unnecessary in this modern world.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-58de87a79fd04203bd335454439447f7 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I don't care if he's young and stupid, being stupid when it comes to sex with minors is a felony. I know all you guys maybe understand and have some sympathy for this hopped up male but some things can't be excused. New world fellows, where any woman to your liking is not subject to your desires. Deal with it and keep it in your pants, please!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-feefdfb2baea4ee3bbd583624952d154 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Pork Chops, I so agree with you and have for many decades now. Our young adults don't even know their own currency system. They can't give change if the register didn't tell them how much to give. I seen many young people just blow their cork when they get their first paycheck. They want to know who gave them permission to take those taxes from their check. It isn't funny, it's a darn shame!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f033369994394a42a5ccb40824c6d201 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Don't let the oil/gas bastards snow you. They sucked off of the public purse for years and it is time for the bastards to give back
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-db54640c595340e9af468c02966afdb7 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: post jobdfgfdbfdbvcvcbvcbvcbbvcbvcbvcbvcbvv
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-d3a739bbe731401a8546432f7a932f5a |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Hilary is a criminal!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-68301d0915a34f1493563457eb4c0bc0 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: This development makes garycrum and many other prejudiced bigots look like fools.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f82780de6b6e460f82242f6f4aaa6a74 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: We're only losing $5 a unit. Don't worry we'll make it up in volume.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-a65f5c8127614e968f8cf55369511402 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: How are these polls performed? Telephone, door to door, on the street? A certain percentage of 'what total' that was polled? The vast majority of Alaskans never vote, but they answer polling questions? Some do, but most? I doubt it.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-1a177d487b414c38a04a3257ff503601 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: "it’s just dumb kids. (That) tells me there are people who think this is an acceptable way to challenge authority"
I don't think it's a way for dumb kids to challenge authority, it's a way to get an easy rise out of someone. What other graffiti ends up becoming a news story? It's just real life trolling.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-b3d9cebfb1334067975435c4cfda3791 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: I agree, this new comment site stinks.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-00bf0fa368bf4d88af6a50aaa6797c41 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: If someone was holding me in my vehicle by blocking the door, that comes awfully close to the legal definition of kidnapping. I'd hit her with the taser too, while the pepper spray kicks in-just to make sure the effect is complete. Friggin' dumb people.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-ec9c5046ee654a6b90e3a4e3e80c03a9 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: You need to go along with a few police ride alongs, I have zero issues with cops killing armed men intent on doing harm to others . Tasers and the such aren't 100% effective. Bullets are a lot more effective
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-1c282af0071c456ca2538f30a53469e3 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Clinton lied under oath which is why he was impeached. The sex
was what he lied about. Their both congenital liars. Obama is a
pathological liar. He should be tried for Treason. Oregon isn't any better.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-ea3e5b757d734e05900da80571a220fc |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: You seriously don't believe the special interests, politicians and HART won't RAMROD this thing through to Ala Moana SHOPPING Center, come hell or high water?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-637b09134f1d4f79a3121b2f25fd34ab |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Hey, Dean Clark-You won the award for stupidest thing said today. See ya' tomorrow!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-1089ecae535d413794fb23141be298a3 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Don't kid yourself GOPers. Republicans will trample each other to lick Trump's boots. That green-eyed monster knows no bounds.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-04f19304c57c40dabf807b2600895e41 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Apparantly the editorial board of the Register Guard didn't read Mr. Cooks letter thoroughly enough. And they must not have a solid grasp of the technicals at hand...
Perhaps they are only pretending as if they don't understand the implications, to avoid any meaningful discussion or exposition of what those implications actually are.
By even creating the one key for the one phone, Apple would be inherently crafting a master key which itself is a de facto back door to all Apple phones. There is no way for Apple to decrypt this particular unit without creating a way to decrypt the others as well.
If a banker does not know the code to the vault, it is not the bankers obligation to blast the vault open as a service to the government. I personally am glad that RG leadership is so open and transparant about their commitment to the Imperial regime. With the RG stepping and fetching for official narratives so dutifully, the hands inside their print media sockpuppet becomes very obvious.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0e5f251882cc4447af6bb50c146dae38 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: "Discovery Channel has made the wise decision to address the legal troubles of the Brown family." Now that, right here, is just as hilarious as the stupid program.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-e8fa960e6cd04eb6a79b7fc1d670ee21 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: OK, I don't agree with lumping all of them together. But I do share a certain amount of your cynicism. When that idiot Reagan beat Carter, I added that to my "Ten Top Reasons Our Species is Doomed" list.
-- Paul
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-d5e6f9afe36c42498ff0cc085b011d31 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Then let's put the gay men on an island and lesbian women on another and after 100 years see if anyone is left, if it is a natural lifestyle!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-3bcf2eb4d3f54437b3af42b15cb4bede |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: There was a white woman having an affair with a black guy in unit 3. They deserve this
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-06a1743827fe4159b796ea63b2b911af |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: We know. He's lived in Alaska more than 3 years (cumulative) and been in his District more than 1 year. It's fairly simple math.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f9bcea1d4be447d5be41976ed5d1fb67 |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: You mean spend, spend, spend like the Republican majority has been doing for the past thirty-something years; and then turn around and pass the overspending into taxes at the municipal level? Now rational voters aren't buy that it's the liberals spending and taxing that's got our state into fiscal trouble. Try again, Ridgefield.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-04abf1861ebf4e10b3225f674a1d6f0d |
Definition: Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.
Positive Example 1 -
Input: haha you guys are a bunch of losers.
Output: Yes
Positive Example 2 -
Input: Is this something I'll be able to install on my site? When will you be releasing it?
Output: No
Negative Example 1 -
Input: You just linked to a complaint (not a court case, a complaint - there is a huge difference) by a guy trying to not pay his taxes. Incidentally, his complaint and associated arguments were rejected by the Tax Court, by the U.S. District Court, by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, literally nobody agreed with him, and he found out the hard way that living in Texas makes him a citizen of Texas and the United States, which obligates him to pay his damn taxes like the rest of us. Just because someone crams a bunch of words, statutes, and case law citations together in a document sprinkled with lawyerly language does not make it a legitimate or lawful argument.
Output: Yes
Negative Example 2 -
Input: Apologies. Her name is Hasselberger. As far as I can tell, she will neither be in Guam or a part of the proceedings.
Output: No
Now complete the following example -
Input: Couple lessons: any and everyone makes mistakes. Getting involved with heroin is a death sentence. I hope my daughter avoids that mistake. It's lethal. And, whoever gets involved with it, it's their own fault. Two: what in the hell were the jail decision makers thinking? Coughing up blood and solitary? And why only $100,000? This seems like a multi-million dollar lawsuit. They killed that girl.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-2e888b01914b42f6984bfd8f8816b83a |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Dataset Card for Natural Instructions (https://github.com/allenai/natural-instructions) Task: task1720_civil_comments_toxicity_classification
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
- 0