[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]
Британцы забирают подбитые российские танки на изучение
Российские танки, уничтоженные в Украине, изучаются военными экспертами.
«Ученые разбирают технику и изучают, как работает оборудование. На основе этого будут сделаны выводы, как можно победить противника, нарушить его коммуникации и усовершенствовать броню собственной техники», - рассказал британский адмирал Тони Радакина изданию «Sky News».


[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]
"Нам потрібно готуватися до поганих новин. Конфлікти розвиваються поетапно. Але ми повинні підтримувати Україну як у погані, так і в хороші часи", - додав генсек НАТО.
📰

Підпишись


[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 ДРГ, состоящая из 20 боевиков ВСУ, попыталась прорваться сквозь наступающие на нацистов ряды Русской армии.
Но сделала это крайне неудачно, нарвавшись на вежливых и точных артиллеристов.
Все до одного УГИЛовцы отправились экспрессом к "батьке" их Бандере.
Владимир Рогов


[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]
Мокша натурально построила зигомёт -
смотрите видео
Но если серьёзно - это первый рабочий рой. У нас лично нет никаких сомнений что мокша может, после наглядных наблюдений как изменилась ситуация в воздухе за первый год войны.
"Демократии" делают посасайтинг и пилят презенташки.


[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 пиздец: зумерша с подругами учит свою 3-летнюю сестру курить
электронку и снимает все на камеру.
WTF: давно п**ды от родителей не получали. Отравляете свое здоровье, так дайте хоть шанс новому поколению, на их плечи и так много г**на упало. Родители, проводите воспитательные диалоги с детьми, это ваша ответственность


[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] Порошенко уже прославляет Безуглую на форумах, рассказывает истории о том, как она села на его место, запала в душу Петру депутат Марьяна.


[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]
"Котеджи на 7 га землі стратегічного значення" в Києві це вам не окупаційна армія на 100% землі стратегічного значення всього Півдня.
Тут потрібні затримання, маскішоу та демонстративні арешти відомих підприємців - а там просто "проєбалі", ну з яким Бакановим не буває.
................
Правова система держави впевнено перевершує здобутки міліції Януковича, та і організатори в принципі одні й ті самі.


[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]
🇺🇦

Шановні сержанти! Бойові побратими!

▫
 Від керівництва Головного управління розвідки Міністерства оборони України та мене особисто прийміть щирі вітання з нагоди Дня сержанта!
▫
 У сучасних умовах, пов’язаних з російською агресією проти нашої суверенної Держави, роль сержантського корпусу у виконанні бойових та спеціальних завдань постійно зростає та набуває нового значення!
▫
 Сержант – це опора командира, його надійний помічник і лідер у колективі, який має досвід, навички, уміння та спроможний повести за собою підлеглих.
▫
 Завдяки вашій професійній майстерності, старанності та відданості своїй справі якісно виконуються завдання за різними напрямами діяльності у військових організаційних структурах Головного управління розвідки Міністерства оборони України.
▫
 Сьогодні багато з вас, ризикуючи життям, виконують визначені завдання в бойових умовах, очищуючи рідну землю від російської нечисті, відновлюючи суверенітет і територіальну цілісність України.
▫
 Вдячний кожному з вас за самовіддану службу та результативну працю.
Упевнений, що сержанти-розвідники й надалі будуть примножувати здобутки воєнної розвідки України, славні традиції бойового братерства і взаємодопомоги.
▫
 Щиро бажаю вам міцного здоров’я, миру, злагоди, родинного благополуччя, професійних успіхів і незламної віри в нашу спільну Перемогу над ворогом!

🫡
 Слава сержантському корпусу Сил оборони України!

🇺🇦
 Слава Україні!

Начальник Головного управління розвідки
Міністерства оборони України
генерал-лейтенант                         Кирило БУДАНОВ
@ChiefUkrDIU


[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]
Планували операцію, яка завершить війну,
–
Піонтковський
 про зустріч Залужного з Марком Міллі.
«Йдеться про спільну розробку воєнної операції. Вони 3 години сиділи над картами і разом планували операцію по взяттю Мелітополя, виходу до узбережжя Чорного моря та перетворення Криму і окупованої частини Херсонщини у величезний котел для російської армії. Це спецоперація, яка завершить війну» – пише опозиційний політик.
Батальон «Монако»
💎

З питань реклами


[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]
❤🩹
Шкільний клас до та після обстрілу.
Ще один доказ того, шо росія країна терористка.
🧐
 Львівич | Підписатися


[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 тульської області (рф) трєвожно

рашисти розставляють засоби певео після трьох 'інцидентів' з БПЛА, які спокійно долетіли до області. На позиції виведено: " Панцирь С-1, ЗРК С-300,  комплекс РЕБ "Поле-21".
🇺🇦
Реальная Война


[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]
Тут тільки дві області: Рівненська та Чернігівська, подібна класична виборча агітація зараз іде по більшості регіонів. Для слуг війна в їхніх головах закінчилася ще в 2019 році, а зараз найкращий час займатися майбутніми виборами. Це доки конкуренти всі ресурси й сили вкладають у підтримку армії.
А слуги в цей час успішно мародерять. Звідки, як думаєте, багатомільйонні кошти на цю партійну макулатуру? А яйця по 17 гривень, яблука по 52, броніки, на які бюджетні гроші списали, а продукції не отримували, незакуплена літня й зимова форма для бійців, патрони й снаряди за ціною в 10 разів вищою, завезені від зарубіжних приватних компаній? Усе звідти. Звісно, крали слуги й на іншому - закупівлі енергетичного обладнання, розкраденій гуманітарній допомозі.
Наступні вибори, до яких, замість перейматися захистом України, займаються слуги Зеленського, стануть не зеленими, вони будуть червоними від крові пролитої захисниками України через те, що замість на війну, на цілі своєї кампанії крали слуги, притулята та інші мародери. Ніхто не знає, скільки людських життів втрачено через ці розкрадання задля того, щоб уберегти банду при владі...


[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]
❗
Задержан житель Симферополя, который был завербован сотрудниками украинской разведки и позднее взорвал ж/д полотно в Крыму, сообщила ФСБ.  Он дал признательные показания о сотрудничестве с украинскими спецслужбами, заведено дело по статье о диверсии.


[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]
📸
 Фиксация последствий
обстрела
 Киевского района Донецка

в

20:40
 25.03.2024
❗
Специалисты Представительства ДНР в СЦКК подтвердили
факт
 обстрела Киевского района Донецка, а также уточнили применяемое вооружение и тип ракет.
Противник вел огонь из РСЗО калибром 122 мм с позиций, расположенных в районе н.п. Карловка, ракетами JROF HEF (поражающие элементы в виде 9100 шариков - шрапнель), увеличенной до 40,2 км дальности, произведенные в Словакии и переданные
🇺🇦
 странами, входящими в блок НАТО.
❗
Зона ответственности 59-й отдельной мотопехотной бригады (командир – полковник Виноградов Александр Анатольевич).
🏘
 Зафиксированы
повреждения
 частного жилого дома по ул. Сорочинская, 18.
🕘
 На 12:30 информация о пострадавших - не поступала.
@online_dnr_sckk


[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]
Не может... А придется!
https://peremogi.livejournal.com/67677707.html
#все сразу достали кошельки

#знаете ли вы шо

#теория перемог

#весьмирснами

#и тут снизу постучали...


[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]
Поздравляю с годовщиной образования Следственного комитета Российской Федерации действующих сотрудников и ветеранов органов СК РФ!
От вашего профессионализма зависят итоги борьбы с преступностью, экстремизмом и коррупцией. Вы стоите на страже верховенства Закона и справедливости.
Примите слова искренней благодарности за вашу опасную, мужественную, важную работу, служение интересам государства, защите каждого человека от любых посягательств на жизнь, свободу и имущество.
Желаю вам и впредь вносить достойный вклад в укрепление законности и правопорядка, настойчивости и терпения в решении любых задач, а также здоровья, мира и благополучия!
Владимир ТУЖИЛИН
Министр транспорта ДНР


[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]
Новий випуск добірки найкращих текстів з усіх куточків світу українською мовою.
Цього тижня ми підготували такі історії:
🔹
Жодних альтернатив Байдену. Чому кинути президентові США виклик на виборах буде дуже складно (The New York Times);
🔹
США крокують до диктатури. Чому треба серйозніше ставитися до високої ймовірності, що Трамп повернеться (The Washington Post);
🔹
Вразливість у мережі. Як скандал з публікацією "оголених" фото школярок засвідчив, що жодні закони не захищають від Deepfake Porn (Bloomberg).
І ще 7 цікавих матеріалів, анонс яких ви знайдете за
посиланням
. Повні перекази текстів отримують щонеділі наші передплатники.
@liganet


[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]
«Моршинская» - все?
Один из самых известных украинских брендов – «Моршинская» - вероятно,
доживает последние дни.
СЕО компании IDS Ukraine Марко Ткачук обнародовал заявление, обвинив АРМА в незаконном конкурсе на отбор управляющего на арестованные акции - компании «Карпатские минеральные воды» (вода «Карпатская Джерельная»).
«КМВ» планирует уволить часть людей и оптимизировать производство «Моршинской», чтобы развивать собственный бренд, о чем было неприкрыто заявлено в СМИ и зафиксировано в конкурсной программе. Сомнительный конкурс был организован чтобы
уничтожить бизнес компании
, а не эффективно управлять им до момента, пока не будет решена судьба активов - до их национализации, считают в IDS Ukraine.
Напомним, под предлогом санкций против Фридмана (владельца 18,3% пакета IDS Ukraine) – были
арестованы
 и переданы в АРМА 100% акций, половина при этом принадлежит британским, грузинским и украинским акционерам, которые под санкции не подпадают. АРМА выбрала управлять акциями (это важно!) «КМВ», но ни лицензии, ни разрешений, ни персонала, ни адекватного опыта управления акциями у «минеральщиков», конечно же, нет. Из чего можно сделать вывод, что
«Моршинскую» просто хотят заменить на «Карппатську Джерельну».
Батальон «Монако»
💎

З питань реклами


[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]
Глава МИД Венгрии Петер Сийярто выступил на фоне карты страны в границах времен до Первой мировой войны.
 На мероприятии, была использована провокационная карта "Великой Венгрии". Об этом сообщил румынский евродепутат Влад Георге в Твиттере.
Карту вывесили на форуме "Мир и безопасность", организованном правящей партией Венгрии "Фидес", где и выступал министр.
На баннере форума была изображена Венгрия в ее нынешних границах и "Великая Венгрия" в границах, которые имела до Трианонского мирного договора. Сейчас часть этих земель входит в современные Австрии, Словакии, Румынии, Хорватии, Сербии и Украины.
"Венгрия – страна-член ЕС – подрывает суверенитет Румынии, другой страны-члена ЕС… Это отвратительно и возмутительно",
 – заявил Влад Георге.


[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]
С 1 июля в Украине должны были вырасти тарифы на воду.
 Соответствующее решение НКРЭ приняла накануне.
Но уже 3 июля подорожание отменили –
 после гневных комментариев президента Зеленского и премьера Шмыгаля.
НКРЭ отозвала решение
, заявив, что начинает консультации для выработки "справедливого социального решения".
Проблема в том, что
утверждая новые тарифы, НКРЭ ориентировалась на расчеты водоканалов
. В Раде этим фактом возмутились, отметив, что
калькуляцию водоканалов надо бы перепроверить
. В итоге подорожание воды отложили сначала до весны, а затем до лета.
29 июня регулятор снова вернулся к этому вопросу.
 И на заседании НКРЭ решение приняли. В среднем
подорожание должно было составить 30% и проходить в два этапа:
с 1 июля и с 1 сентября. Для жителей трех областей – Николаевской, Херсонской и Харьковской – тарифы оставили прежними, так как эти регионы являются прифронтовыми и существенно пострадали в ходе военных действий.
Но для некоторых водоканалов ценник повысили существенно больше.
 Например, "Житомирводоканалу" его подняли сразу на 56% — с 37,5 до 58,5 гривны за куб. "Винницаоблводоканалу" тариф повысили почти на 60% – с 25,62 до 40,75 гривны за куб. При этом, как видно, в Виннице вода даже после подорожания будет значительно дешевле, чем в Житомире.
У некоторых водоканалов даже со среднестатистическим подорожанием на 30% вода получается "золотой".
 Скажем, в Павлограде ценник вырос с 53,7 гривны до 70,6 гривны за куб.
То есть, как видно, ценники на воду, которые и до этого были разными от региона к региону, после пересмотра тарифов стали бы еще больше отличаться.
Житель Львова заплатил бы за куб 28,6 гривны, а Павлограда — 70,6 гривны.
Поясняя, почему будет дорожать вода на первом этапе, то есть с 1 июля, в Нацкомиссии отметили, что
всему виной подорожание реагентов
(многие из них импортные), увеличение затрат на электроэнергию, а также "изменение объемов реализации". Имеется в виду снижение потребления воды.
У водоканалов стало меньше абонентов
, активно расходующих воду, так как многие украинцы с начала войны выехали за границу. А чем меньше потребителей, тем в итоге дороже вода для тех, кто остался.
На втором этапе, то есть с 1 сентября, к факторам, влияющим на подорожание воды, добавился
рост зарплат и обязательства водоканалов по кредитам
 (преимущественно довоенным).
Однако эксперты утверждают, что "
у 99% водоканалов есть резервы для уменьшения энергозатрат и других затрат
". Но "им интереснее повысить тарифы, чем поработать над оптимизацией работы".
В самих водоканалах утверждают, что
работать по старым тарифам дальше попросту не могут
.
Президент Ассоциации "Укрводоканалэкология" Дмитрий Новицкий заявил на заседании НКРЭ, что
многие водоканалы уже перестали платить за электроэнергию
. Растут долги, и непонятны источники их покрытия. Поставщики реагентов отказываются снабжать предприятия в долг. Нет возможностей ремонтировать сети, намечается кадровый голод. В целом
водоканалы пугают, что, если тарифы им не повысят, то ухудшится качество воды и вырастет количество аварий, начнутся массовые перебои с водоснабжением
. Таким образом, вода не подорожает, но может исчезнуть из кранов.
Компромиссным решением могло бы стать
дополнительное финансирование водоканалов из местных или государственного бюджетов
. На такую модель намекают в НКРЭ, говоря о "социально справедливом решении". По этой же схеме, к слову,
работают тепловики:
 тарифы на отопление людям не повышают, а разницу между действующим тарифом и себестоимостью производства и подачи тепла записывают на государство. Которое пока не спешит эти деньги платить. Набралось уже под
40 млрд долгов
, и когда их выплатят теплокоммунэнерго - пока неясно.
Если к теплу добавится еще и вода, сумма, которую выставят бюджету,
увеличится еще на несколько миллиардов
. Но зато люди будут платить по старым тарифам.
Пойдут ли власти на такой шаг или тарифы на воду все равно повысят, только немного позже, вопрос открытый
.


[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]
VICE News
 — ліве англомовне ЗМІ, яке було великим другом України та з
2014 року допомагає доносити світу правду про злочини РФ
 — яке в кращі часи вартувало
$6
млрд. — нині
банкрот
. Тепер його продають за декілька сот мільйонів. Кращі журналісти вже давно покинули це видання — зокрема
Островський
, який чи не найбільше висвітлював тему війни в Україні — дав вичерпне пояснення чому так сталося:
"2011 рік, ми сиділи з Шейном
(CEO Vice)
 в японському ресторані на російсько-китайському кордоні, він на тиждень запізнився на зйомки щодо кордону Північної Кореї. Цілу годину він мені розповідав про свою колекцію люксових годинників. Хто б міг подумати, що Vice зав'яне?"