[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]
Сьогодні, 13 березня 2023 року, 55 дитячих садків Києва, Бучі та Броварів для забезпечення сталості та ефективності освітнього процесу отримали ноутбуки з ліцензіями і ресурсами від The LEGO Foundation.
Пристрої надають у межах співпраці МОН та The LEGO Foundation закладам дошкільної освіти, які є учасниками проєкту «Сприяння освіті». Уже забезпечено ноутбуками 260 дитсадків, 25 обласних інститутів післядипломної педагогічної освіти та 15 закладів вищої освіти.
«Вдячний колегам The LEGO Foundation за підтримку та реалізацію проєкту «Сприяння освіті» у дошкіллі. Так, 300 дитсадків України мають тренінговий, методичний та коучинговий супровід педагогів закладів дошкільної освіти командою тренерів The LEGO Foundation. Дитсадки беруть участь у Всеукраїнському фестивалі гри – навчання та натхнення «Play Fest», одержують ігрові набори LEGO тощо», –
зазначив
 Міністр освіти і науки України Сергій Шкарлет.
Докладніше


[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]
Мені до речі цікаво, а скільки техніки для ЗСУ купили Єрмак та Зеленський за ВЛАСНИЙ рахунок?
Бо вони доларові мільйонери, а то і мільярдери. Просто цікаво.


[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]
"Если вы чувствуете себя ненужным, вспомните, что кто-то сейчас в России учится на факультете международных отношений"
@marshalvdv

😈


[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]
Камрады! Тут внезапно новый таинственный супергерой
ИМПРЕСАРИО
 обьявился спасать наш тыл от предателей, инфоцыган и рептилоидов!
Его
ламповый дневник
 стал для нас настоящим откровением и сенсацией о закулисье жизни публичных людей.
Немного отвлечемся от фронтовых сводок, купим попкорн и подписываемся
➡

https://t.me/nightlifeawards
От души рекомендуем!
👌


[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]
Щоб компенсувати втрати на війні проти України, після переобрання путіна навесні в рф буде оголошено нову хвилю мобілізації. Ймовірно, до армії набиратимуть мігрантів.
Західні експерти вважають, що великі втрати окупаційної армії змусять путіна та його оточення розширити коло осіб, які підлягають призову до війська. Але відбудеться це вже після березневих виборів — формального процесу для офіційного продовження повноважень кремлівського диктатора.
Відео: Voice of America
🚀
Приєднатися до чату ZN.UA


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

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[User]
У Львівській ОВА відбулась лекція «Ефективна комунікація з військовими: психологічна підтримка та розмови, що допомагають».
Спікером став Сергій Тітаренко – ветеран російсько-української війни, військовий психолог в ДНП ЦКР «Галичина», майор армійської авіації Сухопутних військ ЗСУ у відставці після важкого поранення під час виконання бойового завдання 4 червня 2014 року, штурман-інструктор 2 класу.
Він поділився правилами спілкування з ветеранами та їх родинами.
📍
Запис прямого ефіру можна переглянути тут:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/dgLSAjXFZJvbJ44x/?mibextid=WC7FNe


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

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[User]
У Чернівецькій області на кордоні з Румунією
відкрили
 новий пункт пропуску «Дяківці — Раковець». КПП будували з 2013 року, а дату відкриття пункту переносили щонайменше тричі. Сьогодні він нарешті запрацював. Новий пункт працюватиме цілодобово. Він має 6 смуг руху для автівок та автобусів, а також окрему смугу для пішоходів.
@babel


[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]
Как же россияне не любят и не хотят жить в своём обожаемом заболотье.
Вниманию спецслужб Испании. Этот "майор", вряд-ли на пенсии или просто в отпуске, от гэбни выходят только через гроб.
Цьом
#путешествия_рюцке_челюсти

#русские_не_люди


[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]
Рейдерське захоплення Бучаводоканалу
– СБУ повідомила про підозру трьом організаторам.
У серпні минулого року 10 озброєних добробатівців увірвалися на територію підприємства.
Погрожуючи фізичною розправою, вони не допускали працівників до обладнання, що спричинило перебої з водою у місті.
Труха
⚡
Київ
 |
Надіслати новину


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

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[User]
Вообще-то я абсолютно согласен с українським
☝
 журналистом из уна-унсо
Мосийчуком
, трансмутированным лично самим
☝
 Великим Князем Киевским Анатолием Первым Нетаким из мерзких рОгулей в  антибЕндерцы-антинацЫки.
Кремль за свои кровавые гривні устроил очередную провокацию против української нації. Снова подло навалил гімна козакам в шаровары. Платит по восемь своих росийських килогривень українським
☝
 военкомам за одну
шт
. голову пидпанованой худобы.  Геноцид!
Кто-нибудь, позвоните в Гаагу.
"
Максимальный оооор. "Не мобилизация, а диверсия москалей".
Чистейшее украинство
" - не сдержавшись, поделился украинофильским восторгом один украинофил.


[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]
#ЦПД_повідомляє
:
🔻
У США планується антивоєнний мітинг з вимогою припинити військову допомогу Україні та розпочати мирні переговори.
🔹
Лібертаріанська та Народна партії США організовують мітинг під назвою «Лютуй проти воєнної машини». Під час мітингу спікери планують звернутися до президента Джо Байдена з низкою вимог, зокрема щодо війни в Україні. Серед них - "припинення фінансування війни" та заклик до "дипломатичного врегулювання конфлікту".
🔻
В оголошенні зустрічаються російські наративи про те, що розширення НАТО на схід спровокувало російське вторгнення, а війна проти України призвела до загрози ядерної війни з росією.
🔸
Серед запрошених спікерів - колишні політики, журналісти, активісти й музиканти, які раніше висловлювали проросійську риторику, включаючи колишню членкиню Демократичної партії США Тулсі Габбард та співзасновника Pink Floyd Роджера Вотерса.
🔸
Мітинг запланований на 19 лютого біля Меморіалу Лінкольна в центрі Вашингтона.
#stoprussia
TG
 |
FB
 |
INST
 |
YT
 |
TW
 |
TT


[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]
Дело Коломойского начинают разваливать по процессуальным нарушениям.
Такова реакция Зеленского на «тёплый приём» во время визита в США.
По Коломойскому в США есть двухпартийный консенсус – экстрадиция и суд.
Сейчас бывшим собственникам Приватбанка Игорю Коломойскому и Геннадию Боголюбову в США выдвинуто обвинение в создании преступной сети – дело слушается Канцлерском суда штата Делавер, который принял решение о рассмотрении дела по процедуре акта RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – закон, принятый в США для борьбы с организованной преступностью, разработан с целью преследования как юридических лиц, так и любой группы фактически объединённых людей), что не делает никаких различий между характером сообществ или организаций вовлечённых в процесс расследования, таким образом любая организация, хоть государственная, так и политическая, общественная, благотворительная даже неформальная вовлечённая в процесс автоматически становится объектом расследования.
В ходе рассмотрения этого дела дела в Канцлерском суде может быть установлен факт связи компаний Владимира Зеленского со структурами Игоря Коломойского и Геннадия Боголюбова и выводом $5,5 млрд из Приватбанка.
Простыми словами, Зеленский не получил гарантий безопасности и Коломойский остаётся в Украине.

https://t.me/beregpravy/5499


[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]
Политолог, кандидат политических наук Александр Страхов (
@falconianthreads
) специально для «Консерватора»:

Украинские традиции

предательства
19 (29) октября 1657 года священник Максим Филимонович писал замечательному русскому просветителю, царскому другу Фёдору Ртищеву:
«Им
[малорусской верхушке]
не хочетца кабаков и панства своего отстать, купетства ради, а не посполитого добра; а царское б величество да изволил… в
Чернигов бы воеводу доброго прислать
».

Письмо написано 350 с лишним лет назад, но читатель, верно, уже прикинул эти печальные строки на современность и догадался, о чём пойдёт речь.
Малороссийская верхушка никогда не отличалась верностью и постоянством.

Возьмём список гетманов со времён Богдана Хмельницкого и посмотрим, на кого делала ставку неискушённая в малороссийских верхах царская власть.

После смерти Богдана Хмельницкого в 1657 году к власти пришёл его сын Юрий. Однако, будучи ещё юношей, он передал власть сподвижнику отца — Ивану Выговскому — и уехал учиться в Киев.

Иван Выговский по происхождению был поляком и в 1658 году подписал с Польшей Гадячский договор, фактически закончив восстание и вернувшись в подданство короля. Выговский участвовал в Конотопской битве, краеугольном камне украинской пропаганды. В 1664 году Выговский, которому чем-то не угодил король, втайне руководил антипольским восстанием и был расстрелян.
Две измены.

После измены Выговского гетманом стал Иван Беспалый, который никогда не переходил на сторону Польши, но добровольно сложил полномочия в пользу подросшего Юрия Хмельницкого, за что в благодарность был расстрелян. В 1660 году Юрий присягнул на верность польскому королю. Гетманом стал его дядя Яким Самко, малорусский мещанин, которого перед царём постоянно оклеветывал его конкурент — Иван Брюховецкий. В 1663 году в результате интриг епископа Мефодия — того самого священника Михаила, писавшего Ртищеву, — Брюховецкий казнил честнейшего Якима, что вызвало реакцию русских чиновников на местах:
«Свиньи учинились в начальстве и обрали в гетманы свинью»
, но до царя не дошло. В 1667 году Брюховецкий перешёл на сторону польского подданного, гетмана Петра Дорошенко, а после — на сторону Турции, но Дорошенко схватил Брюховецкого, небрежно махнул рукой — и того убили.
Итого: три измены.

Запутались? Это присказка, не сказка. Дорошенко тоже перешёл на сторону султана! Получив через несколько лет живительную встряску от русского воеводы Ромодановского, Дорошенко сдался и… получил воеводство на Вятке да имение под Москвой (тут уж читатель должен забиться в конвульсиях от смеха), где и скончался. Итого за всю карьеру Дорошенко набрал
 четыре измены
 и пока лидирует в нашем рейтинге.

Но в путаном списке предательств и перебежек мы потеряли тяжеловеса данного вида спорта. В 1662 году Юрий Хмельницкий отрёкся от гетманства, чтобы уйти в монастырь и страстно жалеть о своём решении. В 1668 году он радостно поддержал переход Дорошенко под турецкую власть, посидел в Константинополе консервной банкой и после падения Дорошенко был назначен гетманом. Прибыв в Малороссию, Юрий тут же начал строить планы о побеге к христианским государям, но под пристальным надзором турецкого паши остался «турецким» гетманом. В 1681 году турки его сместили, а в 1683 году назначили вновь. Через два года османский паша удушил опостылевшего всем Юрия Богдановича, чем оказал большую услугу вообще всем причастным: и султану, и царю, и королю, и Малороссии. Если честно, к концу рассказа
я и сам сбился со счёта, сколько и куда перебегал Юрий.

Даже из такого путаного рассказа видно, что предательство и измены — это modus operandi юго-западной элиты.
Так что, может, всё же прислушаться к совету Максима Филимоновича и не искать в Малороссии союзников, а «присылать воевод»?
Человек-то знал, о чём говорил.
Подписывайтесь на канал «Консерватор»


[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]
Ці меседжі в тій чи іншій формі нам доносять наші партнери, ключові світові гравці, нажаль. Світ цинічний, політика - безмежно цинічна.
Вони дають нам зброю, щоб ми були достатньо сильними аби стримати російську навалу і не допустити війни в Європі, але не настільки сильними, щоб знищити росію і похитнути економічний зиск наших союзників.


[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 Киеве со здания КГГА отмывают краску, которой вчера облили табличку во время митинга с требованием к местной власти тратить деньги из бюджета на ВСУ, а не брусчатку и прочие невоенные траты.


[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]
Как иронично, однако, вышло с "регулированием винтиков"
👹

Остаться с нами в Телеграм
 |
Восхититься нашим YouTube


[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]
Выжженная земля и полностью разрушенные многоэтажки
: Tg-каналы публикуют кадры из прифронтового Угледара.


[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]
Ближній бій. Як єгері ДШВ брали штурмом позиції росіян в районі Бахмута
Воїни 71-ї окремої єгерської бригади Десантно-штурмових військ Збройних Сил України розповідають як знищують  російських окупантів в районі Бахмута Донецької області.
– Бахмут – це справжня фортеця! – відзначають захисники України.
Разом до Перемоги! ДШВ – Завжди Перші! Слава Україні!
🇺🇦
🇺🇦
🇺🇦
#stoprussia

#ДШВ

#ЗСУ

#Завжди_Перші

#UkrainianAirAssaultForces
#AirAssaultForces

#WarInUkraine

#RussianAggression
#BattleOfUkrainianAirAssaultForces


[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]
🟥
 росіяни створили «армію ботів», щоб сіяти «зраду» серед українців про Бахмут та ЗСУ. Розкриваємо всю схему брехунів

Армія рф не може взяти Бахмут, тому пропагандисти намагаються послабити ЗСУ, посіявши зневіру серед українців.
Центр стратегічних комунікацій разом зі Страткомом ЗСУ дослідили основні меседжі росіян, які сіють «зраду» довкола ситуації в місті-фортеці.
Які меседжи просувають пропагандисти та як працюють російські боти, читайте у нашому спільному матеріалі
👆
Підписуйтесь на
@SPRAVDI
 та
@AFUStratCom
 – щоб бути завжди в курсі інформаційних атак ворога.
👆

Telegram
 |
Сайт
 |
Instagram
 |
Twitter
 |
Facebook
 |
Viber


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

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[User]
Дорогие кировчане!
Поздравляем вас Днем Крещения Руси!
Крещение Руси – это знаковый и важный этап в истории становления русского православия и российской государственности. Крещение позволило сделать так, чтобы Россия процветала как экономически, культурно и духовно развитое государство.
Обращение Великого князя Владимира и всей Руси в православие имело определяющее значение для истории нашего Отечества и на протяжении более тысячи лет занимает особое место в жизни России.
Этот праздник возвращает нас к началам российской государственности, способствует сохранению памяти об истоках славянской культуры, духовности и объединению многонационального народа нашей Родины на основе принципов патриотизма, испокон веков укреплявшего государство.
Желаем вам крепкого здоровья, счастья и благополучия, новых свершений на благо города Кировское!


[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]
🇺🇦
🎥
🇺🇦

Про современных иезуитов или как информационно перебивали тему утверждения в стране концлагеря
Сегодня депутаты проголосовали 100% антинародный закон. Почему антинародный? Потому что он не устраивает ни армию - не разрешил демобилизацию, ни народ - вводит меры драконовской мобилизации!
Итак как офисные помойки и ермасята пытались переубедить общественность, что ничего страшного не произошло:
✅
 начали с пряника - пообещали 70 тысяч тем, кто на передовой.
О том, как лишали предыдущих льгот, как считают, кто на передовой, а кто нет - умолчали;
✅
потом пошли "кнуты" -  Чмут, рассказавший, что нужно мобилизовать с 20 лет.
Задумка - все должны радоваться, что мобилизовать пока будут "ЛИШЬ" с 25;
✅
затем - нардеп Марьяна Безуглая, поддержавшая мобилизацию женщин "иначе будем уничтожены".
А женщин же пока не гребут - ну вот, опять "демократия", радуйтесь глупцы - классный Закон
;
✅
Потом рассказали как много за время Большой войны заработал Порошенко.
Страна воюет, а Крыголам богатеет - ату его!;
✅
Но больше всего нас порадовало, что офисные помойки и ермасята "вдруг" заметили мирный план Эрдогана Стамбул-2. Через Новую Газету вбросили описание опубликованных документов. Но упоминать, что  первыми их опубликовали наши коллеги из Резидента, конечно, не стали. И вся «офисная» помойка по команде отработала нарратив.
И документы и предложения Эрдогана по условиям мира игнорировали 3 недели! Не смотря на заявления о них Лаврова и Шойгу.
 Вспомнили только когда понадобилось дать народу надежду - пусть отвлекутся от закона ложной надеждой о мире.
Почитали комментарии на этих помойках - работают боты. Причём одни и те же. Не позволяют дискуссии скатится к войне до 1991 года. Пусть пипл потешится возможным миром.
А для патриотов вышел Подоляк и заявил, что только 1991 год.
Итого, всех развели по чатам и каждому дали своё
🤷
О том, что Зеленский под давлением США, как мы писали, отказался от предложения Эрдогана - ни слова. Иезуиты, что с них возьмёшь!
Кстати, лишний раз спалился наш ермасёнок-Миша. Тоже написал про инициативу, как про новую, прямо как Труха и ко. Конечно, его подписчики в чате сразу поправили, но он сделал вид, что не заметил. Заказ отработал, побеждал дальше, благо, новостей много, быстро забывается.