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: Doesn't seem like O'XXXX's "home town" is gaining much from legal gun sales, with no dealers in Chicago.. They should start taxing the dealers of stolen firearms, they'd make a killing..
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-b8315e315df04b7c8495c69980b00225 |
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 think they heard us folks! We said leave that building and move to the Atwood and leave the developer to absorb his shady deal. He knew what he was doing and should now face the consequences along with every legislator who voted yes. This is an outrage especially when we citizens are expected to absorb cuts in services, start paying taxes, and give up our dividend to fill the gap created by these same Republican idiots!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-94b861fbaa634cd4bfee7291d0cff357 |
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: Wait til the democratic convention. Any bets that it will be as uplifting as the 1968 convention?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f17fb67f789f4aaaaf968ebf28473d06 |
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: So the Legislature feels obligated to buy the building because they feel guilty. The only obligation you have is to the people of Alaska to go with the least expensive of the options. Apparently that obligation is less important when you aren't a major donor to political campaigns.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-946ad5c280d54233bbecd0e2a6febeeb |
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 will come as no surprise that I am lesbian by nature. It is possible, although highly unlikely, that I could fall in love with a man. I'll name him Earl. I might marry Earl because he is fun and interesting and loves to travel and just rocks my world. Earl would be an anomaly. The spectrum of human sexuality is endless. Gay, straight, bisexual, asexual. Not my business if it's not my bed.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-b662bc8bc637460387064e81cc7c47df |
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: Well you don't have to pay for stupid shopping bags in Springfield.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f83dfb8a74354b408a2ffa4dafdbefdb |
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: Democrats want you to pay income taxes and they want part of your PFD to give state workers pay raises . They are the ones who deserve to be voted out of office .
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-143b3bbf77ab4002a2f8401240bfd61b |
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: Amarcus, where are you, PUNK? Dicky Rhyner, where are you, PUNK? Weigh in, shit-heads.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-e185005c716a4a06a5f40907736522c2 |
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 about a 100-foot water SLIDE to California?!?! Then we would be talking!!
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-b56cb8cc35f349e7908284f01d8ce359 |
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 agree - Trump has never defended a child rapist in court and then laughed about it, and he certainly hasn't encouraged the invasion of libya (which is now a hellhole) and then chuckled about Gaddafi's death.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-2c257b7528514eeba920a8d166e153d7 |
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 support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-9da869bf73fe41f4beba99e2ad986166 |
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 lord knows, William F Buckley, the father of conservatism, and dedicated stoner who advocated legalization was a lazy apathetic unproductive loser, right?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-e7c0ac44de3e4fd4aa5cefea17e82a6d |
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: See my explanation at GOP Debt Solution under Opinions.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-8d7d0e21929a43b28a1f113a914a6e10 |
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: sounds typical, try and blame a worker, never procedures or equipment
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6c431db823934169a1c7871862057f93 |
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 yet people like you never have one word to say about the RG editorial board publishing unsigned editorial after unsigned editorial day after day, because that would expose naked just how profoundly stupid your sophomoric drivel is. Ornery Bear, Eugene.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-70649ae62b1d404a867b5a7ce816d577 |
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: Pilot would argue a story about water being wet. Pointless to get into with him. Just an old grump.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-c4c037ef01004afcb7eab7b60146f959 |
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: LOOK OUT, UBER!
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-4b70124b9b7347ebbac2626c06d70d4f |
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: Whoever gets elected President this year is going to have very little credibility. This election looks like a half a dozen adolescents fighting in the sand box and throwing sand in each others faces. The immaturity displayed in this election cycle is abhorrent. Americans are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats, slinging anything they can get their hands on at each other, because nobody wants to share any chocolate milk with anybody else. DISGRACEFUL!!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-806f1191459440eba131282de04e0d6f |
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: Bob, please keep posting this, front and center, all the way up to and including Election Day. Voters need to fully realize how greedy some of these "conservative" legislators truly are.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-dd34a22017384bf8ab0bb5182e7e399b |
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: As far as I am concerned... You saw an opportunity to spread your big bad looter propaganda crap and everyone in archaeology is jumping on the band wagon against these dreaded pot hunters and who's to say you won't desecrate them yourselves to make the public look bad again in the light of all your media attention and cover up operations talking about the federal government and state police. The FBI Art Crime Team is a joke. They wouldn't even know a real art crime tip if it jumped up and stabbed them in the ass with a 16th century sword. They only investigate what the government tells them to. Same as your state inspector generals and those also of your federal agencies. I'm just saying the truth here. A national memorial in Bradenton, Florida is living proof just how much these people care about our national heritage. They don't. When the EPA spent 34 million dollars to destroy an eligible national historic site portrayed in our national rotunda and they did zero to stop it. No sale
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-4bf63dc833624b0c9894ee215f9f8d39 |
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. The economy grew at a meager 1.4% last quarter. Most of these new jobs are minimum wage, part time, with no benefits.
If a Republican had turned in seven years of this poor performance the RG editors would be appoplectic.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6fb81f9228d94cb080dda497291cab65 |
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: Three complete idiots, now of the streets.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-7e4eda08740f4c50966cbf2f7cdf8ca0 |
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: So that's what I need to buy to keep the bird crap off my car! Thanks for the tip!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-51a0245eb40a4a4c8544d1ffc4d5f458 |
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: Part 7 of 12
Budget planning, even only five years out, is a very dubious enterprise. Nevertheless, it is a time frame the public and the press can easily monitor with the help of an annual city auditor’s report. If extra funds from Salem or Washington D.C. come our way so much the better.
Jules Bailey supports Answer B. The new Portland gasoline tax proposal of ten cents per gallon raises only 14.5 million dollars per year. A new Portland gas tax of 30 cents per gallon would be required to match the amount needed just to maintain the status quo of a 12% road repair deficit.
This proposal exacerbates the current 12% road repair deficit and places Portland businesses that sell gasoline at a distinct disadvantage.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-3071ffd1520147d2860aafb42b9fb20f |
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: Andree, I think you meant inhibits socialism as free thinking is encouraged. The premis of home school is real world relavence.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-feb7cd67ef8047b5a88d5a471124aaa1 |
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: Your entire reply is predicated on something I never said or even implied.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-4653813aaa3a4f4586cd2f6447dab5c3 |
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: Can you pronounce Benghazi? She's a criminal and a known liar, you can't hide that facts.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-2751cca9b3e84cf99279cf2098d82403 |
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: Fire ALL the judges. Anytime you walk into a ballot box and there are judges up for retention, VOTE NO ON ALL OF THEM!! Throw the bums out!!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-a3af3c0773f049df88c984587022f50e |
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: "Islam is a pearl. A Muslim is an oyster."--old Muslim proverb meaning that a Muslims conduct isn't necessarily in compliance the precepts of the religion he professes.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-86e57bc24f6742bcb5b90512c5b2cf51 |
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: "Glad George is leaving the council."
Not sure why that makes you happy. He has been this project's biggest critic.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-3be54ea38dfb4732b69f7a892cc1214a |
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: so where s your proof? its easy for shit talkers like you to acuse when hes not here to defend himself. id like to take a peek into your closet jim.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-b3829126d4854be3972abec36f03cd4d |
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: Alaska Airlines website says unaccompanied minor service is required ages 5-12 and optional for ages 13-17
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-d3e0303c923d487996e6450e1c774835 |
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, now we're back to my point. Unfortunately, it is apparent that pedestrians (and probably bikers too) need explicit instructions to help them ensure their own safety. The feel good rhetoric on the city's website is not enough; its not working.
The final draft of Vision Zero needs to be something tangible, not rhetoric. Otherwise, it seems people will continue to let themselves "be killed at alarming rates", such as walking into travel lanes. Since it is the pedestrians and bikers who are the ones being "killed", why continue resisting pro-active safety measures that bikers and pedestrians can use to help themselves stay alive?
To make a real difference, I would think in terms of a since and frank resolution that applies exclusively to the vulnerable. There are all kinds of forums that apply specifically to consumers, as a self-help tool preventing them from being ripped-off. It works for consumers, why not for pedestrians and bikers?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6ceeac2f2d9f402382d51ee53043538a |
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 we don't want a misogynous racist making the call.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-9640a5688b4c451d86bf10db6b884b3a |
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: Getting independent verification of any tests used is of high importance. We must make sure that any tests used are developmentally appropriate, free of racial and ethic bias, and for skills which are of actual value. Test the tests, and then test them again. Students shouldn't be scare off learning by being forced to endure developmentally and culturally inappropriate instruction and tests.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-38e01150dfb04f3ab0c75faddf486596 |
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: actually in east coast lingo, "make America great again" is code for "the elite shall rule"
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6271b3d4243043ab89d25d38d78b5b4d |
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 "damned internet"...... there's nothing new about the Shasta behavior.. but now photos hit the web and millions see the selfishness and lack of simple decency..
Over the years we've had individuals drive out to our rural area, back their pickup up to the bank of the road and dump their trash. I've worked with Lane County, sorted through the trash with officers and found envelopes, etc with the names of the culprits. The County has held them accountable. I'd like to see the authorities sort through the piles of Trashta, find some names and both fine and bill some individuals for clean-up.
Of course the Greek organizations will assure everyone it "wasn't us." It would be interesting to see the rental agreements on those houseboats and, perhaps, publish just "who" was there.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-0e55df926bda4929a99cfa81b100b895 |
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 wouldn't want this laughing jackass in my city.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-cd865c5b7a994e85bc72523206f35f67 |
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: "Kitzhaber and former first lady Cylvia Hayes remain under federal investigation relating to influence peddling allegations." Why do we care what these people have to say?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-e04d5fd9f5674066bf075cdacc2d4a04 |
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: Nice story, but who is Krantz? Only last name mentioned in the story. Also: silly restaurant name and insensitive drink name coupled with a not-so-smart publicist who would not be working for me after a post like that.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-a72659f00d8445c083ec9bcf6021cafa |
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: "Trump is a product of many angry, mostly white Americans" What an ugly racist comment.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-0b6f039ad3ac4fdaa8a04335b97c7a04 |
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: ADN you continue to disappoint with your grade-school level writing. Roman Dial was EN ROUTE-not "in route". I have been commenting on this garbage level writing for years-and you continue to fail.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-3d3a6e97437b422fad529802c5722d8c |
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 for Eronius Johnson and Jaquiss for the DHS story.
More like these all over the face of State Government.
Just awful abuses of power and failure to do the morally intact reporting needed to stop the nonsense.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-3eb5eca14db3440886e5f7a0dbcd14be |
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: These protesters are ridiculous. So much effort into silencing people who disagree with you. So much hatred and violence , yet they have the gall to say they have the moral high ground.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-4825aaa4afac415e9b3419df2f12769f |
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: Govment is taking over to much it has to be stopped
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-a9f3404416ea465193d6cbdde19a851b |
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: Excellent Info-mercial.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-37c63414283d49a28e0a7df911708a68 |
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: Proof that organized crime and Drug Cartels are not only in our government, but taking advantage of the illegal law to distribute heroin using marijuana as a gateway
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-1b83cbe27661446ca9b92f1a66b64a67 |
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 difficult to have a 'war' if one side is totally unarmed as a result of their own personal choice.
The anti-gun nuts are not those with the 310 million civilian firearms in their possession. It's more like the bleating of sheep where the wolves are in the majority.
Fortunately, the wolves are not feeling threatened. Yet.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-12a22dc32b2843c6a84e62905667dc7e |
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: Jesus you guys are all morons. Sad that Alaska's educational system must have gone so far down the tubes. I love the "Liberal" comment... Considering there are no politics here. You're a pathetic human, worst of them.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-05e43714a98f4b8189bb28850caa9afc |
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 a guy named Governor Blagojevich (D) gets to stay in jail according to the Supreme Court. So if the elected representative is truly stupid enough good things do happen in Chicago.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-a12dd6b56a854607ad9f84f64d5e4c8c |
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 trash talking. You're claiming others have a disease that you use to defile them.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-0581a251870b4ba1b9d7f3c025669b7e |
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: Could we perhaps borrow "Canuck" to serve in the Alaska Legislature. How refreshing to have a living entity in the House or Senate that had some idea of what it was trying to get done........
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-e828ccfd31d44639a168363d7224e633 |
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 many people has trump murdered? Or talked about murdering? Or anything else that Hitler did? Didn't think so. Now stop this nonsense, it's getting tiresome.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-71cde7a48b31446392a99485274412ee |
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 lot of scum in this state.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-9b40ee67703e49b2a86e98fce0b60693 |
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: Security in Anchorage generally is a joke; there simply is nothing like enough police presence, and in most places there is little "people" presence. Much of the town looks like it is in lock-down; nobody on the street, nobody outside their home, no kids playing outside. I live in nice, relatively quiet part of town, yet I see the moms take their kids to the school bus stop and sit there watching over them until they get on the bus. Most don't ride the bus at all and there is a long, long line of "mommy-mobiles" dropping off or picking up kids at the nearby school. I almost never see a kid playing outside. ANC has been over run by the scumbags and losers, and the only police presence I see much of is the take home car in front of the expensive house.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-c6ea16902d3f437e9c789a443feb0085 |
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 tin eared can the Republicant "leaders" be? Alaskans (and Americans) want our elected officials to work together for the benefit of all - not ones who kowtow to the party's ideology! It's like a bunch of little kids saying "if you're friends with him, you can't be my friend too." Pathetic.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-807f103e2f8f436894bc0beeb927cd2b |
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: Voters declare themselves as independents. However, there is no organized independent party. Candidates need the backing both financially and politically to run for office of an organized party. We have the unity party administration which is the chosen administration of Unions. Thus, demands, demands, demands.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-c681d7d0847c4736bd2fc34ced157dd8 |
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: yep, the rich and well connected always win: when $ is tight they convince all the stupid middle classes to hand over thier hard earned money while they laugh all the way to the bank.
funny how the rich keep getting richer at the poor's expense and we're dumb enough to enable them by voting for tax breaks for oil companies and politicians who flush public funds down the toliet studying boondoggle mega-capital projects
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-9bf9d322868e4b0194481b5a41ef9e72 |
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't name a single Christianity inspired terrorist attack. If mass shootings are tied to religion, that religion is Islam.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-3be83a938f674bce812ce21e2582f9cc |
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: Actually, I do think voters are stupid and deserve what they elect. If they are swayed by advertising so be it. YOU can NOT deny speech to anyone - no matter how they pool their funds. Get over the Bill of Rights and move on.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-9ee12c7a834141079382b0eab100b11b |
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 PETA, catching fish is 'animal abuse'.
For some Hindus, a different religion, killing mosquitos is forbidden.
For some Hindus, the doctrine of Ahimsa discourages wanton destruction of nature including wild and cultivated plants. Hermits (sannyasins) are urged to live on a fruitarian diet so as to avoid the destruction of plants.
Choose your religion.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0646f8a6a5b842b2bffe8e25d511dd1d |
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: Bernie may have scared the crap out of the bird. One of the OLIve posts shows a bird very like his crapping on their laptop at the event.
https://twitter.com/TeresaMahoney/status/713509298727288832/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-36fe8c1f40334b5f9a3cbea0b272141d |
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 you don't know what you think you know about this"? I'm not claiming to know much here. As far as I can tell, you don't forfeit your car when you get a DUI. Anecdotal and from the State of Alaska's website that's far from the case. There's a bit of a gulf to cross between forfeiting your property and having it impounded. I don't think you know as much as you think you know about this.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-caa0cdad80a54855b728d3052f9b5bea |
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: Great job, Char! I'm so excited to see what you've written. I will order your book and recommend it to my clients. It's very important material and I'm so glad you have offered it to everyone.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-f1b39b87f2c446a39fa5149b94d4e30a |
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: trumpster has it in the bag. fact
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-38d719ce087643b5b4340dfb0c0d6fda |
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: once again compromise with environmental terrorists is their way or no way. Frankly I hope they all die in a massive forest fire and cook like marshmallows.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-2d782d8d14934c60accfd19cd5c41346 |
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: Well, actually dumba** I go back to Cowper days and I still live in Alaska. I spent thirty years dealing with idiots like you, and most of the time I won.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-0e28d193bc864be59f1e2cb52b68b2f3 |
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 those rules are hard to follow because I like to do those things, I guess I will just concentrate extra hard on not doing the ones I already dislike (like gay sex) and persecute those who engage in them. Maybe that will satisfy god and he wont notice how I pick and choose which rules to follow.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f2169860fae341358f3fa54b190cfa73 |
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 are a few things about your post that need pointed out, there are not a lot of protests at Cruz events because he is not the frontrunner, he is actually farther to the left than Trump, check out the signs that are being held and tell me its Republicans protesting, most are black , Latino or women and if you look back on clips of Iranians protesting the USA and burning flags the anti Trump protesters all have the same look of hate towards the USA as the Iranian protesters, and would like to tear down the structure of America just like Obama and his administration have been doing. It doesn't do the left any good to have the protesters destroying property and or abusing police doing their job, all that does to real Americans if firm up the idea that they need a person like Trump in office, time will tell.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-04e6b40e29ca47d6ace61c5f51eb1ced |
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 can't think of one comment you've made where you haven't come across like a total prick. I wish it was possible to block some posters. You contribute nothing.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-dba9e91441f747a2a71ea0c31e78d1ac |
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: Boozer - I don't talk to drunks who look for mudfights.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f7c66e77ae104777a741510fd554e4a4 |
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: Reckless ignorance allows for an recklessly ignorant (loud) voice! Here's to independence and reckless abandon.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-77cd40c13ff043a2a09c9dde7cc1ac7c |
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! Don't let the door hit you in the A$$ when you leave!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-cb19b330c1fc47699ae249f157d159c5 |
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: Gun's and KILLING!.. He should be charged. Point. Discharging a fire arm in a public place. What happens if this trigger happy cowboy misses the target and shoots the owner or his own son? Guy should be locked up and the key through-en away.. He will be great over fighting whomever abroad with his trigger happy hands.. Charge HIM and put a bite in the laws to protect the individual person. Alaska airlines, Do you allow him to fly with his gun on board? If you do, you are pretty sick too.. Better do a stress test on him especially if a pilot. That is very scary.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-38ed75ffa1054e12a4a63642f366611b |
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: Shouldn't this read "...hash oil explosion SUSPECT...?" The victims are the now displaced family living next door. Good thing no children were playing in the back yard.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6e0a0968986b4cd49c589b1143294d07 |
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: Does that strike you as implausible? After all, when Christianist homophobes kill gay people, we don't rush to condemn Christianity.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-c860b38f289045e2892c41ad583245eb |
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 is interesting about this story is what kind of people would have voted for this guy?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-d04cc1ac1bb249fca07c87c614828152 |
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: Thank you, was hoping someone would fill in the blanks here.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-734f9e611e7c45c39485b0c5d0fd3d4d |
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 always refreshing to read a well written good story regarding our local law enforcement protecting the citizens.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-a0fc678128ef443ca1c89395e310ef22 |
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: OMG OMG bill on a medical procedure goes to *Health and Social Services Committee OMG OMG
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-d20c143097e64569b1aec758651e9c4f |
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 shouldn't feel too sorry for Chile because they turned against their home-grown socialist problem in the 1970s, rather than become another technological and economic backwater like Cuba. Today Chile is arguably one of the best-run countries in the western hemisphere, economically and politically. Arguably they are even more 'progressive' than the USA - after all, they have already elected a woman president! ;-)
Chile is not a 'third-world' country by any stretch of the imagination, despite what the writer of this letter implies.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0d7c033d64d44059896b020f27da07a2 |
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 idea. I tend to use content blockers on sites that I know don't moderate comments very well. If they adopted a system like this I might stop doing that.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-174b2ffd4b4d42acb79b897f8e5c7b95 |
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 would any big donor contribute to either one of them if they didn't expect something in return?
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-bcb9aee4cbfe4fd7bdfd6927876dfe05 |
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: No, it shows you the severe problem. The media is trying very hard to push this, and the numbers just are not there like they wish them to be. Lived 50 years of my life without seeing a MAN in my bathroom, UNTIL this year. One crashed in my ladies room, acting like a jackass, yelling loudly at some poor kid "IT" dragged in the bathroom with him. They want us to believe they have been using the womens bathrooms this entire time. I call BS. This is Obamas social experiment for his transgender lover Michael DeVaughn Robinson "AKA Michelle Obama"....its what its ALLLLLLL about....google it...no woman I know has a friggin adams apple!
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-0be296c6e4d64a659b6aee4c16765935 |
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: Ms. Brown.. Your outweighed, misinformed and a complete (quoting a dear friend's favorite word) IDIOT! Gawd is she an actress from Alaska Bush People?
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-edb2503bb0524db2a9058d8b30b91e0d |
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: Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.This is what I do.
-------------------➤➤➤➤➤www.best-job-site70.comᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵᴵ
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-ffdebb455fa74f0e9059b6d18f49691c |
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 is dangerous because it could be any number of things thrown together in a bag and called spice (think herbs d' provence, but also think meth, coke, heroin and all the horrible drugs full of all kinds of crap to cut it and make it travel further) and sold cheaper than cigarettes.
There's too many fools with no money out there and you can be sure 'fools' are selling something for almost nothing that has no real recipe or definition.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-dc97c28d86544193ad26d4463f5c8803 |
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, your comment should be getting more likes.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-ded4e4acac824484b03323b53c62dbdd |
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'm a father of daughters and sorry for your loss. But we make choices good and bad and we must live with them. Jail is jail. Not the systems issue.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-6c28076c5b8343bab50a43484fc15ce7 |
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: Of course these anti trump types never have proof of him calling women pigs. ( besides rosie o, who is one). These drama filled letters are amusing in their desperation. Anybody but billary.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-19408be62592403eb896a3ea8ebc96f7 |
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 2 months my email box filled daily letting me know you put a gold star on my posts, and on over half of my posts you replied positively and added to the debate. You even stated you wished I could be more liberal with my comments toned down for this board. Then you learned I smoke pot and now you're posting crap like this, even when you're in agreement with what I said. Does your bigotry towards pot know no shame or dignity? You're now acting like the racist who agrees with me, until he learns I'm Native American and then starts treating me like I am black. Your dysfunctional behavior is quite curious to me, and especially from a man of your age.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-29084e3c39664563b9f7ce64f7c9f283 |
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 point a gun at someone unless your going to use it. Because for every minute you don't pull the trigger, is time for the other to scheme a way to get your gun and kill you with it.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-7dda8bf07d054327a200036c09b2b0ad |
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: So what is your solution? The permanent fund restructuring is the only realistic way to fund government. It is just math. There isn't enough income to tax to pay for a 3 billion deficit. And if you tax my income and hand it to people getting PFD's, then the PFD becomes welfare
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-5f5b06384acf42d6848ef9fd2e4114fa |
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: Commenters, please, the comments here as I write this are as funny, collectively, as the average Saturday Night Live comedy skit. Have you seen Mr. Trump on television, ever? Have you read any of his interviews?
Why is it that people who like his candidacy seem to ignore what he actually says? Normally in politics the supporters believe the politicians, and the rest of the world doesn't. In this case, we have the oddity of swarms of supporters who clearly don't believe that their own candidate means what he says. And the rest of us do.
And a special comedy award to the idea that objecting to his bigotry makes a person a bigot.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-879eb7ae3cb04d8d81fc5433c659645e |
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: Did you not look at the map??? The other 40 states are 17 and 16. This would not have been a crime in any of those 40 states.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-0d30140c49704947b17a17b1ebf1918c |
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: Well, he could have bought a box and nails and pressure cooker and blown up even more people. He could have loaded his car up with propane tanks and gasoline and driven it through the building and killed and maimed even more.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-9d34eeed5e83490796b5d07acc2d8111 |
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 you people defending this guy have no scope of the matter. I am a neighbor and this guy has been terrorizing the area for yrs. If you were here in this nhood you would be singing a different tune I guarantee.
Furthermore, killing the neighbors pet because of boundary issues is ridiculous. Has anyone ever thought of knocking on the door and talking with someone and figuring it out? Or is "just kill it" is all you can come up with? The man is a psychopath. Why don't you come up to his house on s4th and d and look at what is on his fence.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-f1e33378dae141fe8f95691220f36af4 |
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: repeating the same babbling nonsense doesn't make it fact, it shows a lack of intelligence. It isn't an issue of prediction. Your argument is deluded straw. Furthermore it's in print and you still fail to follow the discussion. I advocate teaching algebra as an elective, not remove it entirely from the curriculum as you ignorantly post. furthermore you run like a coward from the facts I referenced as to how this is causing a dropout problem, a fact your delusions refuse to accept.
Output:
| [
"Yes"
] | task1720-149853e6918948ae8bf9e68bc8d88857 |
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: tRump doesn't have the fortitude to rise to the challenge of how to continue moving this country forward. We can expect that he'll cut and paste his mud slinging and name calling. Why hell, he's even brought on his campaign board the guy who created the Willie Horton campaign ad that was used against Dukakis. Yep, that's where the un-presidential campaign is headed. Voters will buy tRump in his own sewer. I can't wait to see Hillary unleash Bill. American voters hated the Republicans hypocrisy when they tried to impeach Clinton and it didn't work. I wonder if the Larry Flint- style machine will come out of the woodwork. LOL
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-85562e3728ff4a06a97a20e8e633a009 |
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 fact that we even have knowledge of a world with this many attacks is unique in history. As efffective in creating terror that their name imply's, those are not incidents of global wars between any of the superpowers.
And yes, hope sometimes can be found in the middle of a dung pile. The fact is that most of our generation and even more so in the next, consider violence as a poor way to rule a country and an unjust way to solve conflict. That's new in Western history.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions of course Motley. But I've watched young people in my circle of friends/family travel to Laos, Vietnam, Combodia and they traveled with other young people from other parts of the world. The young woman never felt unsafe and returned in great heath and an amazing experience. That wouldn't have seemed possible even 20 years ago.
Nobody said it would be easy and I'm fully aware of the need to keep a strong military for national defense.
Output:
| [
"No"
] | task1720-37682c7a31d941bdbc85463e3c889f0f |