Guidelines

DISCLAIMER: Statements may contain strong language or may be offensive to some readers. Your anwers will be assessed for their quality, please read each statement carefully and answer according to the guidelines.
Please study the following instructions carefully before starting with this HIT.
Read each of the statements below and select if the stance is strongly against, somewhat against, somewhat in favor, or strongly in favor towards the given topic.

  • The statement is explicitly against the given topic. In this case remember to also check the “Explicit” button.
  • The statement is opposed to someone/something that is in favor of the given topic.
  • The statement is in support of someone/something that is against the given topic.
  • The statement is mirroring someone else’s negative opinion
  • It can be implicitly derived that the statement is against a given topic from the information it contains (e.g. title of a news article, a scientific study, etc.), even though it is not in favor or against someone/something.

  • The statement is explicitly in favor of the given topic. In this case remember to also check the “Explicit” button.
  • The statement is in support of someone/something that is in favor of the given topic.
  • The statement is opposed to someone/something that is against the given topic.
  • The statement is mirroring someone else’s positive opinion.
  • It can be implicitly derived that the statement is in favor of a given topic from the information it contains (e.g. title of a news article, a scientific study, etc.), even though it is not in favor or against someone/something.

  • The statement contains strong language and expresses strong emotions and passion about the subject.
  • The author of the statement seems to be adamant in their opinion and the statement is assertive and has a sense of correctness, or clarity about a subject.
  • The statement verbally attacks the opposed opinion or other authors who express it.
  • The author uses sarcasm
  • The author uses generalized statements about the group of people that are pro or against a topic
  • The statement is written in a argumentative or condescending tone, like it is provoking people to react

  • The author seems to be open to discussion and willing to engage in a conversation.
  • The author is receptive to another person's opinion.
  • The author is interested in another’s perspective
  • The author sounds less dogmatic or uncertain about the subject

If the user does not take a stance on the relevant topic, click on the box ‘A stance cannot be inferred’ and choose an option that describes the type of the statement as good as possible:
  • The author supports both stances or explicitly expresses a neutral opinion
  • The post is (somewhat) related to the topic, but a stance cannot be inferred
  • The author asks a question: Asks for information, opinion, orientation, confirmation without revealing the stance on the relevant topic. Select this option only when the stance is not implied.
  • Irrelevant response: Offers an irrelevant response to the topic; makes a joke, reflects on the subject, or talks about a completely different topic.
  • Not understandable: Either because the language usage is extremely poor, or because the author is referring to an event or a person that you are not familiar with.
  • Not applicable: Select if none of the above types describe the type of statement. In case of 'Not applicable', state briefly the type of statement in the description box.

In case you assign a stance (strongly against, somewhat against, somewhat in favor, or strongly in favor) but you are unsure about what you have selected, then check the "I am unsure of my stance assignment" checkbox. By "unsure" we mean that either the statement could be interpreted completely differently by another annotator, or that it was very difficult to make a decision.
Please use this selection as rarely as you can and with extreme caution.

In case you assign a stance (strongly against, somewhat against, somewhat in favor, or strongly in favor) but the post has a sarcastic tone, then check the " This post is sarcastic" checkbox. By "sarcastic" we define any statement that contains sarcasm, irony, humour, wordplay, puns, and generallly any kind of figurative language.

In each HIT, please read carefully the description of the given topic.
After marking the stances in ALL of the following 4 statements, click on the ‘Submit’ button to finish this HIT.
Statement:
Blackmun's opinion also said:
> **the State does have an important and legitimate interest** in preserving and protecting the health of the
pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest **in protecting the
potentiality of human life**
Clearly, the Court at the time did not understand that unborn life was human from the moment of conception. Rather it believed it became human once it became viable. Hence why viability is the cut-off point. Now that we know the unborn life is human at all stages of its development, a smart lawyer could point to the section of Blackmun's Roe v Wade opinion and argue that the State now has a compelling interest in protecting the unborn life at all stages of its development because science has affirmed it is of the homosapien genus.
The author is
abortion.
Statement:
Do you have the slightest idea what the forced-birth cult actually supports in the real world?
They're pro-terrorism, anti-healthcare, anti-welfare, anti-education, anti-women's rights, anti- worker's rights.
In short, the forced-birth cult is AGAINST anything that might have the slightest chance of ever helping an actual living breathing born human being in any way.
If you were ACTUALLY pro-life, you wouldn't act like that.
History shows beyond all possible doubt that the forced-birth cult has never cared about any living thing, and never will.
Your cult was founded on segregation, racism, and sexism.
> I think you are a disgusting person.
You're just projecting as always.
> The maternity death rate in modern countries is 4/100000, if you think that repealing all abortion will see women die in their droves you are a smooth brain simpleton.
Your cult is doing everything in their power to ***increase*** that death rate, by opposing healthcare and women's bodily autonomy.
Because you hate women and want to watch them suffer and die.
The author is
abortion.
Statement:
“rape is fine”
imagine hearing that without context xd
The author is
abortion.
Statement:
There are limits to your bodily autonomy. In very few instances are you allowed to kill an innocent person. In fact, abortion is the only one I can think of.
The author is
abortion.
Survey (Optional):
Please help us to resolve annotator bias by taking part in the following small survey. The participation is optional. You only need to answer the questions about your age and gender once. You can answer the question about stance only whenever you encounter a new topic. Your answers will not affect the acceptance or rejection of your assignments. Answer truthfully or not at all
What is your age?
What is your gender?
What is your stance towards abortion?