[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Звіт по ворожій діяльності за добу 14.04.24
Стратегічна авіація:
▫
Переліт 1х Ту-95мс з ае "Оленья" на ае "Енгельс-2" (і навпаки).
Флот:
— ракетоносії заведено у пункти базування.
Застосоване озброєння:
▫
4х зенітні керовані ракети С-300/С-400 по Донецькій області (0х збито);
▫
2х керовані авіаційні ракети Х-59 по Одеській області (2х збито);
▫
10х ударних БпЛА "Shahed-136/131" по Харкову, Харківській області (10х збито).
@monitorwarr
 |
#звіт


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
🤥
 Увага, ворожа брехня: українські захисники готуються залишати Бахмут, а перед цим спалять будинки
У своїх Telegram-каналах пропагандисти поширюють світлину оголошення «зроблену» в Бахмуті. В оголошенні йдеться, що 16 лютого будинок буде спалений «для створення димової завіси проти наступу армії рф».
Як зазначають пропагандисти, таким чином українські захисники начебто збираються покинути місто. Однак вся ця інформація – черговий ворожий фейк.
❗

Центр стратегічних комунікацій нагадує:
• До нелюдських способів ведення війни вдається лише росія.
• Ворог намагається посіяти паніку серед мирного населення, поширюючи таку інформацію.
• Спалюванням будинків, викраденням, ґвалтуванням та вбивством людей займається армія рф. Наслідки її діяльності в Бучі, Ізюмі, Маріуполі бачив весь світ.
• Українські воїни контролюють ситуацію та тримають оборону в Бахмуті.
👆

Telegram
 |
Сайт
 |
Instagram
 |
Twitter
 |
Facebook
 |
Viber


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
🕶
🕶
🕶

на фронті станом на кінець доби 11 жовтня 2023 року
▶

Біломосковський, Сіверський та Білгородський
відтинки

— без змін
.

▶

Сватівський
відтинок — кацапи поновили штурмові дії з Лиману Першого, результат ще невідомий. Уточнено район Крохмального.
▶

Бахмутський
 напрямок — Сили Оборони продовжують наступальні дії біля Кліщіївки та Андріївки. Біля каскаду ставків ворога було відкинуто.
▶

Авдіївський
 відтинок —
продовжуються
 бої за Авдіївку. Під**и
продовжують
 тиск з Водяного на Сєверне та з Красногорівки в бік Степового та терикону. Ворог має частковий успіх, але чи вдасться йому закріпитися - покаже час.
▶

Бердянський
 відтинок — без змін.
▶

Запорізький
 відтинок — ворог проводив спроби контратакувати у Новопрокопівці.
▶

Таврійський
 відтинок — без змін.
🗂

Аналітична записка.
 Триває важкий бій за Авдіївку. Сили Оборони прикладають зусиль, щоб не дати ворогу здобути стратегічний успіх. Кожна наша помилка може дорого коштувати потім, тому на відбиття атак задіяно якісні сили. Важко 110 ОМБр, але справляються. 53 ОМБр добре маневрує і тримає ворога на безпечній дистанції. Молодці і ТрО, і "президенти", і багато інших підрозділів, які не маємо змоги згадати. Хороші успіхи має 59 ОМПБр, кацапи втрачають багато техніки, а поля усіяні трупами "второй армії міра".
⚡
 Також не забуваємо про наш
важливий збір
 на армію дронів Mavic 3Т! Ночі стають довшими, відповідно дрони з тепловізором будуть відігравати ще більшу роль з кожним днем.
💬
У випадку неточностей, можете повідомити нам про це через бот
@newsdeepstatebot
.


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Это комитет рашистских матерей пишут о летчиках которые бомбили наши города.
До чего же безнадежные мрази.


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
#думки_в_голос

Генерал Забродський склав з себе повноваження Народного депутата.
Все вірно! Бойовий генерал! Воює! Навіщо себе ганьбити в тому політичному парламентському багні… ПІДТРИМУЮ!!!


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
В Харькове массово продают квартиры с большими скидками
По словам директрисы агентства недвижимости в Харькове сейчас скидки на квартиры достигают 50%, и по всем признакам дисконт будет увеличиваться. Те жители, которые решили навсегда покинуть первую столицу Украины, пытаются избавиться от недвижимости, чтобы переехать в западные области или за границу.


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Окупанти поцілили по 23 населених пунктах, зафіксовано 159 ударів, - Запорізька ОВА
Ворог здійснив 2 РСЗВ-обстріли Роботиного та атакував 12 безпілотниками Залізничне, Новодарівку, Новоданилівку, Роботине, Чарівне, Полтавку й Малу Токмачку.
По території Гуляйполя, Оріхова, Малинівки, Новоандріївки, Левадного, Лугівського, Кам'янського, П'ятихаток, Степового, Плавнів, Приморського та інших прифронтових міст і сіл прийшлося 145 артобстрілів.
Надійшло 5 повідомлень про руйнування житлових будинків та об'єктів інфраструктури. Місцеве населення не постраждало.
https://t.me/operativnoZSU


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
🫠

У світі зафіксований найнебезпечніший штам COVID-19 – "Пірола"
У низці країн світу зафіксований новий варіант коронавірусу – ВА.2.86, який отримав назву "Пірола". Він є підштамом "Омікрона", що налічує понад 30 мутацій. Штам "Пірола" може бути ще заразнішим, а перебіг хвороби – ще важчим.
Як повідомили в Європейському центрі профілактики та контролю захворювань, основні причини сплеску коронавірусу в Європі – сезон відпусток та подорожей, а також ослаблення імунного захисту в населення.
Знов вакцинуватись?
🤔
Підписатись N
⚡
C
📷

Прислати новину


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Дістається не лише ворогу, але і його військовій техніці та складах боєкомплекту: триває успішна бойова робота нашої морської піхоти, зокрема воїнів 35 окремої бригади морської піхоти імені контр-адмірала Михайла Остроградського
Морпіхи не дають перепочинку окупантам.  Постійно їх "жалять".
Так буде — до самої Перемоги!
Відео: служба зв'язків з громадськістю 35 ОБрМП ім. контр-адмірала Михайла Остроградського
Підписатись |

Facebook


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
‼
Пермский край отправил четвертый электрогенератор подшефному Северодонецку
, сообщили в краевом Правительстве.
Его мощность составит 500 кВт. Электрогенератор обеспечит резервным электроснабжением объекты ЖКХ.
Как отмечают специалисты, в случае аварии на системах энергоснабжения, источник дополнительного электропитания длительное время сможет поддерживать бесперебойную подачу электричества для объектов коммунальной инфраструктуры.


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Відтепер національна програма популяризації англійської мови Future Perfect доступна в соціальних мережах. На сторінках програми в Instagram та Facebook на вас очікують:
💫
 Новини програми та освітні ініціативи
💫
 Корисні поради з вивчення англійської мови
💫
 Креативний контент, адже навчання може бути легким
💫
 Цікаві уроки на різноманітні теми — від граматики до культурних особливостей
Підписуйтеся на сторінки Future Perfect, стежте за оновленнями та не забувайте ділитися своїми враженнями й історіями успіху в коментарях.
📲

Instagram
📲

Facebook
Разом будуємо майбутнє, де англійська мова відкриває нові можливості для кожного!
✨


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Это смешно!
Митрополита Арсения подозревают в том, что он якобы во время литургии завуалированно назвал адреса блокпостов ВСУ.
А потом видео со службы опубликовали в Интернете, а позиции военных, тем самым, были раскрыты.
Да, под камеры, в присутствии сотен верующих, почему-то именно на литургии, целый Архиерей и наместник Лавры решил слить позиции. Причем завуалированно
🤦♂


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
‼
Оперативна інформація станом на 06.00 15.02.2023 щодо російського вторгнення
Слава Україні! Розпочалася 357  доба російського широкомасштабного вторгнення.
▪
Протягом доби противник завдав 2 ракетних удари по цивільній інфраструктурі на Донеччині та 3 авіаційних удари. Окрім того, зафіксовано 68 ворожих обстрілів з реактивних систем залпового вогню, зокрема, по цивільних об’єктах Херсонської та Миколаївської областей.
▪
Противник, намагаючись взяти під повний контроль Донецьку та Луганську області, продовжує зосереджувати основні зусилля
на веденні наступальних дій на Куп’янському, Лиманському, Бахмутському, Авдіївському та Шахтарському напрямках.
🔰
За минулу добу підрозділи Сил оборони відбили атаки окупантів в районах  понад 20 населених пунктів. Серед них - Гряниківка Харківської області; Невське, Кремінна, Білогорівка Луганської області; Федорівка, Бахмут, Іванівське, Водяне, Первомайське, Мар’їнка, Побєда, Новомихайлівка, Вугледар та Пречистівка Донецької області.
▪
На Куп’янському та Лиманському напрямках противник обстріляв з танків, мінометів та артилерії понад 20 населених пунктів, включаючи   Крохмальне, Берестове і Табаївку Харківської області; Новоселівське, Стельмахівку, Невське, Новоєгорівку, Макіївку, Червонопопівку, Піщане, Діброву, Спірне, Роздолівку, Серебрянське лісництво і Білогорівку Луганської області та Федорівку і Степове - Донецької.
▪
На Бахмутському напрямку мінометних та артилерійських обстрілів зазнали понад 25 населених пунктів, серед них – Білогорівка, Веселе, Парасковіївка, Васюківка, Залізнянське, Бахмут, Іванівське, Часів Яр, Кліщіївка, Курдюмівка, Залізне, Нью-Йорк Донецької області.
▪
На Авдіївському та Шахтарському напрямках під танкові, мінометні та артилерійські обстріли потрапили 30 населених пунктів, зокрема, Кам’янка, Авдіївка, Первомайське, Водяне, Невельське, Красногорівка, Мар’їнка, Георгіївка, Побєда, Золота Нива, Пречистівка, Вугледар, Микілське та Времівка на Донеччині.
▪
Противник продовжує зазнавати втрат. Зокрема, в районі населеного пункту Красна Зорька Сімферопольського району тимчасово окупованої території Автономної Республіки Крим,
для приховування кількості загиблих, противник застосовує спалювання.
 Біля місцевого крематорію спостерігається постійна черга військових автомобілів кількістю до 10 одиниць. Цими вантажівками окупанти привозять загиблих російських військовослужбовців та найманців. Кремація здійснюється цілодобово. Послуги з кремації цивільним не надаються.
✈
Авіація Сил оборони України протягом доби завдала 8 ударів по районах зосередження особового складу та військової техніки окупантів.
🇺🇦
А наші ракетники і артилеристи уразили пункт управління, 2 райони зосередження живої сили противника, 6 складів боєприпасів та 2 станції радіоелеутронної боротьби ворога.
Вірте у
🇺🇦
Збройні Сили! Нас не зламати!
Слава Україні!
🇺🇦
🇺🇦
 Генеральний штаб ЗС України


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
❗
За истекшие сутки на территории Луганской Народной Республики
💣
Происшествие – 1:
07.04.2023, 06.49, г. Луганск, в районе Мемориала «Острая могила».
На линию «101» МЧС поступило сообщение о подозрительном предмете. После обследования места происшествия и прилегающей территории сотрудниками МВД выявлена граната РГД-5 с запалом (1 ед.), которая была изъята сотрудниками МВД.
🔥
Ликвидировано 15 пожаров, без гибели и пострадавших.
💥
Согласно данным СЦКК по территории Луганской Народной Республики обстрелов не зафиксировано.
🛠
АВАРИЙНЫЕ СИТУАЦИИ (РЕМОНТНЫЕ РАБОТЫ) В СИСТЕМАХ ЖКХ - 49
⚡
Электроснабжение – 46
30.03.2023 – 31.03.2023. В результате неблагоприятных погодных условий без электроснабжения остаются 9523 абонента в 41 нп.
07.04.2023, Свердловский р-н. В результате автоматического отключения без электроснабжения 1580 абонентов в г. Свердловске.
28.03.2023, 10.57, г. Рубежное. В результате аварийного отключения КЛ 6 кВ без электроснабжения 239 абонентов.
11.10.2022 – 30.03.2023, Кременской район. В результате аварийных отключений без электроснабжения остаются потребители в н.п.: Макеевка, Невское, Новолюбовка, Нововодяное – 855; Кременная – 804, Житловка – 467.
07.10.2022 – 25.10.2022, Сватовский район. В результате аварийных отключений без электроснабжения потребители в нп.: Райгородка, Ковалевка, Кармазиновка, Коломыйчиха, Стельмаховка, Свердловка, Надия, Розовка, Октябрьское – 1111; Софиевка, Филипповка – 39; Куземовка, Новоселовское, Кривошеевка, Подкуйчанск, Калиновка, Змеевка, Мирная Долина – 603; Оборотновка, Владимировка, Наугольное – 399 абонентов.
29.09.2022 – 02.03.2022, г.о. г. Лисичанск. В результате аварийных отключений без электроснабжения потребители в нп.: Новодружеск – 2540, Приволье – 3437.
💧
Водоснабжение – 2
06.04.2023, 10.10. В связи с аварийно-ремонтными работами на магистральном водоводе Ø 800 мм «Молодогвардейская н/ст 3 подъема – г. Ровеньки» ориентировочно до 16.00 08.04.2023 прекращена подача воды потребителям г. Ровеньки и по Володарскому водоводу Ø 500 мм в поселки Свердловского района.
30.03.2023 – 31.03.2023. В результате аварий возникших в период неблагоприятных погодных условий, остается сокращение подачи воды потребителям Славяносербского и Перевальского районов, Брянка, Первомайск, Стаханов; отсутствует подача воды в г. Кировск. Производится заполнение водоводов. Остается без электроснабжения Краснолиманская н/ст. Ремонтно-восстановительные работы выполняются силами ГУП ЛНР «Лугансквода». По состоянию на 06.00 08.04.2023 окончены ремонтные работы насосного оборудования Хорошанской н/ст; подача водоснабжения сокращена ориентировочно 47 000 жителей в 47 нп.
🔧
Газоснабжение – 1
07.11.2022, Сватовский район. В результате остановки ГРС без газоснабжения 569 абонентов в нп.: Новоселовское, Куземовка, Коломыйчиха, Райгородка.
🌦
По данным синоптиков МЧС ЛНР 08.04.2023 по территории Луганской Народной Республики: Облачно с прояснениями. Местами небольшой дождь, в отдельных районах
⚡
гроза. Ветер восточный 7-12 м/сек. Температура воздуха 14-19ºС тепла.
@marochkolive


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Вечер, новости
1.   580 свидетельств отрицательного рождения.
2. Луганск, Токмак - ПВО пропускает аналоговнетно, как всегда.
3. Добрейший беспилотник атаковал склад с военной техникой в Брянской народной.
Получается БНР начали мстить.
4. Наши герои продвигаются на Бахмутском направлении.
Просто держите кулачки за них.
5. Британия передаст Украине 100 боевых беспилотников с дальностью поражения более 200 км.
Британия -
❤
6. В москве чет подгорело и дымилось в Южном Бутово.
Ну и как говорится - подлейте бензина.
7. В результате взрыва в Луганске, был ранен «министр внутренних дел лнр» Игорь Корнета.
Взорвался он в Барбершопе, видимо бороду плохо подстригли, вот и рвануло))
8. В Донецке сегодня так же , активная работа (пропускная способность) ПВО.
Вот такой итог дня, дорогие. Я временно уехал, новости иногда могут задерживаться…
Думаю скоро все вернется на круги своя, если что - не теряйте
Дежурство - без изменений.
Видимость сегодня хорошая. Как всегда, я с вами до раннего утра.
Неизменно - огромная благодарность за ваши теплые слова и финансовую помощь.
Ценю и уважаю каждого.
Обнял, крепко.
Ваш Tlk
❤


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
🌾
 За перші 15 днів нового року Україна
відвантажила
 2,3 млн тонн агропродукції.
Всього від початку війни з України поїхало 41,3 млн тонн агропродукції, з яких:
● пшениці – майже 9 млн тонн;
● кукурудзи – 16,7 млн тонн;
● соняшникової олії – 3,4 млн тонн.
Підписатися на Уряд online


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
На днях
 мы сообщили,
что в Киевской области задержали подростков, которые поджигали релейные шкафы.
Нам в личку прислали предполагаемое видео поджога, которое силовики нашли в телефоне одного из задержанных.
Шептун
 |
Instagram
 |
Facebook


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
⚛

Стратегічний партнер Енергоатома – компанія Holtec International – визначила 2023-й роком інновацій та підбила основні підсумки роботи

У 2023 році було безпечно завантажено 170 систем Holtec для сухого зберігання відпрацьованого ядерного палива, показники безпеки яких значно перевищують загальноприйняті стандарти в галузі поводження з ВЯП.
Також Holtec
планує
 звести дві установки свого флагманського малого модульного реактора – Holtec-SMR-300 – на майданчику АЕС Palisades. Очікується, що перші мініреактори будуть побудовані та введені в експлуатацію до середини 2030 року. При цьому  американська компанія має мету до 2060-го побудувати 500 SMR-300.
Крім того, британська дочірня компанія Holtec отримала 30 млн фунтів стерлінгів грантової допомоги від британського Фонду сприяння розвитку ядерної енергетики, щоб проводити початкові етапи Оцінки типового проєкту (GDA) для можливого розгортання ММР-300 у Великій Британії.
Одним із ключових аспектів роботи Holtec є співпраця з НАЕК «Енергоатом». Це зазначено й у звіті компанії:
«Ми повинні віддати належне мужності і відвазі наших українських колег – Міністра енергетики України Германа Галущенка і очільника НАЕК «Енергоатом» Петра Котіна, які забезпечили успішне введення в експлуатацію об’єкту і транспортування відпрацьованого ядерного палива з діючих реакторів країни до першого у світі сухого Централізованого сховища відпрацьованого ядерного палива»
.
Цього вдалося досягти попри безперервний шквал ракет і безпілотників над територією України. ЦСВЯП оснащене кількома запатентованими конструкціями Holtec, які роблять об’єкт практично абсолютно стійким до природних і техногенних загроз.
«ЦСВЯП є надзвичайно важливим досягненням для України, яке має вирішальне значення для подальшої експлуатації ядерних енергоблоків  та забезпечення енергетичної безпеки і незалежності держави»
, – наголошують стратегічні партнери Енергоатома.
🌐
 Докладно про діяльність Holtec International можна ознайомитися за посиланням:
holtecinternational.com/2024/01/02/2023-an-innovation-fueled-year-focused-on-advancing-holtecs-nuclear-and-solar-energy-endeavors-to-help-combat-the-looming-climate-crisis
#
атомні_новини

Написати нам
🇺🇦
 |
FB
 |
IG
 |
YT
 |
TW
 |
IN
 |
TH
 |
EA


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User] Сегодня в Киев прибыли представители МВФ. А уже завтра нам с вами будут рассказывать, что негодяи-ревизоры снова попросили поднять тарифы, цены и налоги. Ждем…


[System]
You are an expert in the straw_man manipulation technique. Straw Man: Misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. List phrases that provide evidence of straw_man in the given sentence if they are present. Given the evidence, make a judgement whether the sentence contains the straw_man manipulation.
To improve the classification of Straw Man arguments related to language manipulation, especially concerning the provided false negatives and positive examples, it is essential to clarify specific guidelines. A Straw Man argument typically involves misrepresenting an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Here are some refined classification criteria that can help in distinguishing genuine cases from misclassifications for both false positives and false negatives.

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

1. **Identify Exaggeration or Simplification**:
   - Look for instances where a complex argument is reduced to an oversimplified version. If the language suggests that the opponent's claims are being grossly exaggerated or oversimplified, it may indicate a Straw Man.

2. **Check for Contextual Misrepresentation**:
   - Analyze whether the language distorts the context of the opponent's argument. If an example misframes the opponent’s perspective in a misrepresentative light, it qualifies as a Straw Man.

3. **Evaluate Emotional Language**:
   - Assess the emotional tone used. Language that sounds overly aggressive, dismissive, or mocking could indicate a Straw Man approach aimed at ridiculing rather than genuinely engaging.

4. **Look for Absurd or Ridiculous Outcomes**:
   - Determine if the statement presents an exaggerated or ridiculous outcome that is not consistent with the original argument being countered. This boiling down of an opponent's nuanced argument into a ludicrous position is a classic Straw Man tactic.

5. **Watch for Non-Responses**:
   - If the argument does not directly engage with the substantive claims made by the opponent but instead focuses on a distorted or fabricated version of those claims, it may represent a Straw Man approach.

6. **Check for Implicit Assertions**:
   - Identify statements that imply a twofold assertion: suggesting that the opponent holds an extreme or flawed belief while simultaneously attacking that mischaracterization without addressing the real argument.

7. **Focus on Comparisons**:
   - If the argument involved comparisons that simplify, distort, or overly generalize the opponent's claims to make them seem unreasonable (e.g., comparing a political stance to a widely condemned action), treat it as a potential Straw Man.

### Specific Considerations for False Positives:
- Language implying extreme positions or ridicule should still be considered carefully. Not all derogatory terms imply a Straw Man; sometimes, they reflect the genuine sentiment of opposition without necessarily misrepresenting the argument.
- Context is crucial: Ensure that the context in which terms are used supports a Straw Man classification (e.g., direct contrast to the original argument) or not.

### Addressing False Negatives:
- Clear definitions should be applied to nuanced contexts. Many seemingly neutral statements that describe opponents or their positions could mask underlying Straw Man tactics if they do not faithfully represent the opponent's original arguments.
- Implement a wider lens: Instead of solely relying on direct evidence of misrepresentation, look into the overall argument structure and the intentions behind the claim.

### Conclusion:
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a more structured approach to distinguishing Straw Man arguments effectively. By focusing on the manner in which arguments are constructed, the emotional undertones invoked, and the fidelity to the original context and complexity of the arguments presented, classifiers can better discern true misrepresentations of an opponent's views.

[User]
Новини дня, 20 серпня, від Суспільне Суми
🔹
 “Чекати дуже важко”. У Сумах
провели
 акцію на підтримку полонених захисників.
🔹
 “На відновлення довкілля природним шляхом знадобиться 20-30 років”. Еколог
про вплив обстрілів
на екосистему Сумщини.
🔹
 Сум'янки Антоніна Климкова та Катерина Очкуренко
здобули
 "золото" на чемпіонаті України з кінного спорту.
🔹
 “Після 24 лютого не думала, що знову будемо грати” —
розповіла
 тренерка “Сумчанки”, міської команди з хокею на траві серед жінок, Світлана Макаєва в інтерв’ю Суспільному.
🔹
  У Сумському районі
поховають
 бойового медика Валентина Янченка, який загинув на Донеччині.
Більше новин читайте на
сайті
 Суспільного.