[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]
❗
😐
😳

Ані Комітет з питань оборони, який був запланований на 10:00, ще не почався, ані Погоджувальна рада
, - нардеп Железняк
Водночас депутат Гончаренко повідомляв, що
нардепів взагалі не впускають на Погоджувальну раду
, яку проводять під виглядом "якоїсь закритої зустрічі".
Також він зазначив, що фракція Європейська Солідарність
звернулась до Стефанчука
 з проханням, щоб пʼять членів фракції були присутніми на зустрічі керівників парламенту, фракцій так комітетів, яка зараз проходить у закритому форматі.
Підписатися на Telegram ТСН
 |
Перейти на YouTube ТСН


[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]
я звичайно дико перепрошую
 я принципово не пишу про збитки ракет
 тому якщо ви думаєте, що вони літають, а їх ніхто не збиває - ви помиляєтеся
 я на відміну від вас не збираюся допомагати супротивникові в зразковій дислокації нашого ППО, тому можете пирхати скільки завгодно, але це в тому числі ваша безпека
 моє завдання - сповіщати про ті ракети, що є, та які несуть загрозу
 якщо у вас є ГЕНІАЛЬНІ ідеї як "збивати ракети на підльоті" або "збивати їх прямо на фронті" - двері військкомату завжди для вас відчинені
 ракети знову змінили курс
 загроза по ракетам
👉
 Миколаївська, Кіровоградська, Вінницька, Черкаська, Київська області
Взято у
@vanek_nikolaev
Переклав
@vanek_nikolaev_ukr


[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]
Вранці в районі н.п. Суджа, Курської області рф, місцеві жителі нарахували більше 15 "прильотів".
👀
✅
@totalzrada


[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]
‼
Українцям в Польщі приготуватися
Поїздки українців додому на свята та у відпустку свідчать про те, що їм не потрібен тимчасовий захист, — Rzeczpospolita посилаючись на уряд Польщі
Польща продовжить допомогу українським біженцям лише до кінця вересня.
Після цього хочуть:
📍
скасувати статус тимчасового захисту після виїзду з Польщі навіть на короткий час. Нині діє обмеження в 30 днів.
📍
зменшити виплати на дітей, але деталей поки що немає.
За даними видання, 21% біженців хочуть назавжди залишитися в Польщі.
ПОДПИСАТЬСЯ


[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. Київ.
Трагікомедія «Колаборант».
Вистава торкається актуальних тем.
Цього не треба боятися.
Лише злободенне лишається у вічності.
Для прикладу всі знамениті трагедії Есхіла, Софокла й Евріпіда писалися, як політичні агітки.
Минуло 2,5 тисячі років, а їх все ще ставлять у театрах.
Так буде і з цією пʼєсою.
Станьте першими глядачами вистави «Колаборант». Буде що розповісти онукам!
22 квітня о 18.00
у КУЛЬТ театрі (Євгена Чикаленка 14)
квитки за телефоном:
0966092776 (наберіть, чи ще лишились місця!)


[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]
Бывшего участника СВО задержали за нападение на пенсионерку в Москве. Он жестоко избил несчастную, сломал ей нос.
Полицейским заявил, что вернулся, отслужив в ЧВК «Вагнер» полгода.
Может и врет, скотина, но после убийства "отслужившим полгода"  героем ЧВК Россомахиным 85-летней старушки в Вятских Полянах, вполне можно поверить.
*данный статус подпадает под статью о дискредитацию и если бы я жил в РФ мог бы послужить основанием для возбуждения дела


[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]
🔔
А ось і головні новини дня підʼїхали
👇
Сьогодні
відзначається
 міжнародний день краси
😍
 Якщо ти досі когось не привітав, в тебе ще є час
⌚
В Одесі підліток
кричить
,
 як його за*бали українці та яка росія велика держава
💩
Фу!
В

одному з супермаркетів країни знайшли мариновану курку з сюрпризом
🤮
 Якщо не хочете попастись на недоброякісного постачальника, дивіться
ВІДЕО
!

Русский Корабль Иди… |

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]
Глава Комитета Палаты Представителей по разведке призвал Байдена рассекретить всю информацию о неназванной угрозе национальной безопасности
—
Серьёзная угроза нацбезопасности США касается возможной иностранной угрозы, проблема может привести к дестабилизации ситуации
, — ранее "строем", как по команде, сообщили американские СМИ
Советник президента США по нацбезопасности заявил, что Байден сможет нивелировать "угрозу нацбезопасности", о которой предупредили конгресс
Телеканал CNN со ссылкой на источники предположил, что обсуждаемая в США "угроза нацбезопасности" может быть связана с некими "возможностями России"
Да говорите уже прямо: Америка боится Путина.


[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]
Десятки військових висадилися біля мосту через Оку в районі Серпухова
Там зараз перекрито трасу М2 «Крим» у бік Москви
🇺🇦

Україна про Головне


[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]
📣
Український інститут національної пам'яті підготував перелік назв населених пунктів, які містять символіку російської імперської політики відповідно до закону про деколонізацію.
Завантажити перелік можна на сайті УІНП за
посиланням.
До переліку поки що не увійшли населені пункти, які розташовані на тимчасово окупованій території України.
Цей перелік не є вичерпним і буде доповнюватися. Оприлюднюючи його, маємо на меті сприяти громадам й органам місцевого самоврядування та звернути їхню увагу на ті назви, які містять російську імперську символіку відповідно до закону.
Упродовж наступних шести місяців, до 27 січня 2024 року, місцева влада повинна подати до Верховної Ради України свої пропозиції назв для тих населених пунктів, які підпадають під перейменування відповідно до закону.
☝
 Нагадаємо, закон включає до символів російської імперської політики топоніми на честь:
✅
 осіб, які були на керівних посадах у держструктурах, війську та партіях, зокрема й тих, які Російська імперія створювала на підпорядкованих землях, і брали участь у/сприяли російській імперській політиці; були працівниками радянських органів держбезпеки всіх рівнів; публічно, зокрема в мистецьких творах чи медіа, підтримували, глорифікували або виправдовували російську імперську політику, закликали до русифікації чи українофобії;
✅
 подій, повʼязаних із утіленням російської імперської політики;
✅
 назв російських міст та інших географічних, історичних та культурних обʼєктів РФ.
❗
Водночас закон передбачає винятки. Це:
❌
 топоніми на честь постатей, які поряд із тим, що займали керівні посади в російських державних утвореннях від Московського царства до сучасної РФ чи сприяли її політиці, водночас захищали політичні, економічні, культурні права Українського народу, розвивали українську національну державність, науку, культуру. Цей виняток не поширюється на працівників радянських органів держбезпеки;
❌
 топоніми на честь найменувань російських міст та інших географічних, історичних та культурних обʼєктів РФ, якщо вони повʼязані з захистом прав чи розвитком українського народу або з культурою поневолених народів РФ.
Також не підпадають під заборону назви, що лише співзвучні з тими, на які поширюються передбачені законом обмеження. Наприклад, не всі Катеринівки чи Миколаївки потрібно перейменовувати, а лише ті, які названі на честь російських царів, якщо це підтверджується історичними джерелами.
Наразі триває формування експертної комісії при Українському інституті національної памʼяті, як передбачено законом, яка надаватиме фахові висновки з питань, які виникатимуть в ході деколонізації. До неї увійдуть авторитетні науковці, які представляють академічні інституції й університети країни. На сьогодні положення про експертну комісію проходить процедуру державної реєстрації в Міністерстві юстиції України. Після завершення процедури державної реєстрації Положення про комісію та оголошення про формування її складу будуть оприлюднені на сайті Інституту.
#деколонізація

#перейменування


[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]
Тварини почали свій ранок з обстрілу критичної інфраструктури України. Знову хочуть навести паніку. В деяких районах вже зникло світло, тому треба підзарядити всі прилади, найближчим часом може зникнути світло на деякий час.
Також нажаль є поранені від цих «прильотів».
Для кожного це повинен бути поштовх відмовлятись від всього російського!
ППО працює!
👊🏻
💪🏼
@natsionalKharkiv


[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]
«Ультраправі підтримують євреїв? Я не хочу мати нічого спільного з твоїм мерзенним расизмом. Я тебе ненавиджу. Будь ласка, від**сь»
😳
Єврейські журналісти закликають проізраїльські "ультраправі" групи припинити підтримувати Ізраїль, та засуджують їх як "мерзенних расистів".


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

### Classification Guidelines for Identifying Straw Man Arguments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[User]
Увага! В Україні все частіше з’являються міновані російські магазини АК
💣

Підготовка міні-пасток є складовою тактики ворога. Останнім  часом на деокупованих територіях почастішали випадки залишення орками нашпигованих вибухівкою магазинів Калашникова.
❗
Візуальний огляд цього магазину показує грамотно сконструйований пристрій, що містить щось, схоже на російський детонатор МД-5М.
‼

Коли користувач завантажує боєприпаси в магазин, товкач буде притискатися до пружини магазину, що зрештою спричинить достатній тиск на запал, і пастка вибухне.
⚠
 Будьте обережними і уважними до будь-яких «подарунків» ворога!
Детальніше про міновані російські АК читайте на сайті sprotyvg7.com.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]
#БессмертныйПолк
#ДеньПобеды
#РоссияКонго
🙌
 Акция "Бессмертный полк" прошла в столице Демократической республики Конго, местные музыканты исполнили "Катюшу".
Организаторами выступили коллеги из посольства РФ в Киншасе. Маршем по центральным улицам города прошлись около ста человек, среди них - сотрудники посольства, соотечественники, российские военные наблюдатели и полицейские Миссии ООН по стабилизации в ДРК и симпатизирующие России конголезцы.
❤

@oamakeeva


[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]
Микола Сольський: аграрії отримали рекордну врожайність за всю історію України
В Україні цього року рекордна врожайність. Наголосив Міністр аграрної політики та продовольства України Микола Сольський під час конференції Victory Harvest міжнародного Благодійного Фонду «Жнива Перемоги».
Микола Сольський зазначив, що незважаючи на важкий воєнний час і складні обставини більшість аграріїв планують і надалі займатись своєю справою.
“Українські фермери показали усьому світу наскільки вони тверді, професійні, витривалі і цілеспрямовані люди. І навіть в такий важкий рік отримали з одного гектару рекордну врожайність за всю історію України. Погода звичайно допомогла, але без героїчної роботи аграріїв ми б не отримали таких результатів”, - наголосив Міністр агрополітики.
Детальніше -
https://1ll.ink/0TGHN


[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]
Кадри зачистки позицій окупантів від підрозділу «Очі».
Наступальні дії тривають. Українські оборонці завзято б’ються за кожну лісосмугу, поступово просуваючись вперед.


[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]
Украинская Нацгвардия бросает своих раненых бойцов под Соледаром
В сети появился ролик с места событий от ВСУшников, которые рассказали, что дела у них идут далеко не так, как «п*здят по телевизору», и порекомендовали его не смотреть.


[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]
Операція БУМеранг: московити терміново евакуюють ядерні боєприпаси з «Бєлгорода-22».
🫵
 Із закритого військового містечка «Бєлгород-22» 12-го головного управління МО РФ екстрено евакуюються ядерні боєприпаси. Про це повідомляють мої джерела в погонах.
🫵
  «Бєлгород-22» (Головчино) - одна з баз зберігання ядерної зброї. За деякими даними, зараз там складуються тактичні ядерні боєприпаси.
🫵
  Легіон
«Свобода России»
 сьогодні почав наступ на Бєлгородщині, захоплено декілька сіл і зараз тривають бої за місто Грайворон.
🫵

Від Грайворона до Головчино приблизно 14 км.

🫵

Мої джерела в погонах стверджують, що орківська в/ч 25624  (тобто власне «Бєлгород-22») очікує атаки російських патріотів з легіону «Свобода России», а тому в паніці евакуює ядерний арсенал. Ситуація ускладнюються тим, що для подібних заходів потрібно запускати в дію суворий протокол безпеки.

Ось так от несподівано Україна може стати ядерною державою!!!
А московитам же казали, що так і буде!!!
З вашого дозволу, процитую власний статус:
«Бєлгороду варто приготуватися. Український контрнаступ буде максимально креативним і напевно що не передбачуваним для окупантів».


[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] Дорогі краяни, будьте пильними, щодо провокацій з боку ворога, який намагається ввести в оману нас та розпалити міжконфесійну нелюдську ворожнечу. Бережіть свої серця у вірі та любові.


[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]
Вышел, поздоровался, ушел
.
Байден решил пообщаться с журналистами, но передумал.
ПОДПИСАТЬСЯ

✅

Прислать контент


[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]
Пізніше розкажемо за чиїх «посередницьких послуг» була досягнута така домовленність
https://t.me/pan_nixto/861


[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]
⚡
Президент Азербайджана Ильхам Алиев обвинил Францию в подготовке почвы для развязывания войн на Южном Кавказе, — СМИ
"Она (Франция) проводит милитаристскую политику, вооружая Армению, поощряет реваншистские силы в Армении, готовит почву для развязывания новых войн в нашем регионе".
#бит_взгляд