text
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans do not need a licence to drive automobiles on public roads\n\nQ1: Is driving without a license illegal in the USA?\nA1: Penalties for Driving Without a License\nFailure to produce a valid driver's license when asked by a police officer can lead to a number of penalties depending on the circumstances. Charges typically fall into one of two categories: correctable offenses and willful violations.\n\nCorrectable Offenses\n\nSimply forgetting to carry your driver's license while driving a vehicle may lead to a \"fix-it ticket,\" where you must later show proof that you fixed the violation in order to have the citation dismissed by the traffic court. Failure to present this evidence typically leads to fines or other penalties.\n\nWillful Violations\n\nPenalties for willful violations of licensing requirements, such as driving on a suspended or revoked license, are much more serious. Driver's licenses are frequently suspended for DUI offenses, since states have an interest in keeping dangerous drivers off the roads. Therefore, when a driver willfully drives with a suspended or revoked driver's license, they may be cited, arrested, and charged with a misdemeanor offense.\n\nQ2: Did the U.S. Supreme Court rule that Americans do not need a licence to drive automobiles on public roads?\nA2: No, because No record exists of this.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The second answer and source shows that you have to have a licence to drive a vehicle in the US so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Mayor Bloomberg helped lower the number of people without health insurance in New York, by 40 percent.\n\nQ1: What measures were taken by mayor Bloomberg to connect New Yorkers to insurance\nA1: Mayor Bloomberg Signed Legislation Requiring Distribution Of Health Insurance Program Pamphlets At Day Care Centers\n\nQ2: By what percentage was the number of New Yorkers without insurance reduced during Mayor Bloomberg's time in office between 2002 and 2013\nA2: The approximate value is 40%",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Confirmed by answer stating 40% and also what was done to achieve this.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: NASA had 58% Indian employees\n\nQ1: What percentage of NASA employees are Indian in 2020\nA1: 8% are Asian American and 1.1% are American Indian",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Seems that the claims math is way off. Therefore the claim is refuted due to the percentages given on the answer.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: CO-2 is not a greenhouse gas.\n\nQ1: What is a greenhouse gas?\nA1: Greenhouse gases are gases that allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth back toward space. They do this because the molecules are only excited by radiation at very specific wavelengths (a consequence of quantum mechanics). In greenhouse gases, those wavelengths are mainly found in the infrared portion of the spectrum, rather than the visible or ultraviolet.\n\nQ2: What is CO2?\nA2: In the air, carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light but absorbs infrared radiation, acting as a greenhouse gas. It is a trace gas in Earth's atmosphere at 417 ppm (about 0.04%) by volume,",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: In the air, carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light but absorbs infrared radiation, acting as a greenhouse gas. It is a trace gas in Earth's atmosphere at 417 ppm (about 0.04%) by volume,\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton let four Americans die in Benghazi.\n\nQ1: Was Hillary Clinton responsible for sending troops to the scene in Benghazi?\nA1: No answer could be found.\n\nQ2: Is Hillary Clinton responsible for the four Americans who died in Benghazi?\nA2: In the Democratic report, the US military and the former secretary of State are absolved of any wrongdoing, the authors insisting that the US military could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks to save the lives of the four Americans who perished.\n\nQ3: Did Hillary Clinton turn down additional security measures prior to the attacks?\nA3: The report says that the State Department's security measures were \"woefully inadequate,\" but that Mrs. Clinton never personally turned down a request for additional security.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There is no evidence that Hilary Clinton had any direct responsibility for the death of the troops in Benghazi\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Trump rushed in reinforcements.\n\nQ1: Where did Trump rush reinforcements into according to the claim?\nA1: How Trump responded to a storming of the U.S. embassy in Iraq.\n\nQ2: Did Donald Trump respond quickly with reinforcements for the storming of the embassy?\nA2: Yes, because President Trump declared on Twitter that the Embassy is “safe” and that U.S. personnel had rushed to the scene.\n\nQ3: How did Trump respond to the Storming of the US embassy\nA3: In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the president held what he called a good meeting with advisers and approved sending a small contingent of Marines and two Apache helicopters to reinforce security at the embassy while tweeting that “The U.S. Embassy in Iraq is, & has been for hours, SAFE!”\n\nDefense Secretary Mark T. Esper also announced Tuesday night that the administration was sending 750 troops to the region as “an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today.”",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the 3rd QA it is evident that troops were indeed sent. therefore, the claim is supported\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Trump Threatened to destroy Iran.\n\nQ1: Did Trump Threatened to destroy Iran?\nA1: The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos. The longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people. Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors. This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran’s people, also goes to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East.We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program. The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it — believe me.\n\nQ2: When did Trump Threatened to destroy Iran ?\nA2: Trump has responded to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s comments suggesting that the White House is “mentally disabled,” and Trump is “afflicted by a mental disorder.” Rouhani questioned Trump’s mental faculties in response to new sanctions imposed on Iranian officials by Trump. “The White House actions show it is mentally retarded,” said Rouhani, calling them “outrageous and idiotic.” He also accused the US of lying about wanting to resume talks between the two countries. “You say you really want to hold talks with us, but at the same time you’re saying that you want to boycott and sanction our foreign minister, so you’re lying,” he said. The comments seemed to hit home, triggering an emotional response from Trump on Twitter. “Iran leadership doesn’t understand the words ‘nice’ or ‘compassion,’ they never have. Sadly, the thing they do understand is Strength and Power, and the USA is by far the most powerful Military Force in the world, with 1.5 Trillion Dollars invested over the last two years alone,” he tweeted. “The U.S. has not forgotten Iran’s use of IED’s & EFP’s (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many more … Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration.” The statements from Trump seem to contradict other US officials, who say the US wants to negotiate with Iran rather than escalate the dispute. “The United States is not looking to go to war with Iran,” said Mark T. Esper, the acting defense secretary. “Rather, we want to get to a diplomatic path.” Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, also insisted the president remained open to real negotiations and “all that Iran needs to do is walk through that open door.”\n\nQ3: Did Trump threaten to destroy Iran?\nA3: No. He tweeted that Iran would be held fully responsible, and that they would pay a very big price. It stated that was a threat, not a warning. But the tweet did not mention destroying Iran, only holding them accountable.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The third Q&A shows that Trump did not threaten to destroy Iran so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The MSME (Micro and Small Enterprises) sector accounts for more than 80% of all businesses in Kenya.\n\nQ1: On which date was the claim made\nA1: 01/01/2020\n\nQ2: How important are the MSMEs to the Kenya economy\nA2: According to Kenya’s National Development Plan (1997), the MSE sector has been growing in importance both as a source of employment as well as innovative technologies.\n\nQ3: Are SMEs and MSMEs the same thing\nA3: No answer could be found.\n\nQ4: What percentage does the MSMEs or SMEs in Kenya contribute to the economy\nA4: Kenya has a large and vibrant SME and informal sector, a reflection of its entrepreneurial culture. This is not unusual as it is typical of most economies, majority of whose SME and informal sector make up between 85% to 99% percent of economic activity\n\nQ5: How much of the MSME (Micro and Small Enterprises) sector accounts for all businesses in Kenya?\nA5: As of the 2016 National MSME Survey, there were a total of around 7.41 million micro, small, and medium-sized businesses. The total is composed of about 1.56 million MSMEs licensed by the 47 county governments and 5.85 million unlicensed businesses.\n\nQ6: What is the latest total of the MSME (Micro and Small Enterprises) sector accounts for all businesses in Kenya?\nA6: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The Q&A's only give a percentage for 'SME's' not the MSME's in the claim, the Q&A's then go on to only give a number for MAME's in Kenya but show nothing to form a percentage for them in the economy. more Q&A's needed to judge.\n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Hilary didn't respond for 13 hours.\n\nQ1: Did Hillary Ignore Multiple Security Requests?\nA1: The Benghazi attacks killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. \n\nIt’s true that the State Department did not honor requests for more security prior to the attacks, but there was no evidence that Clinton was made aware of those requests. \n\nAs for Clinton’s response, none of the many congressional investigations about the attacks asserted (as Trump did) that she was inattentive throughout the hours in which the attacks occurred.\n\nMoreover, it was not Clinton’s responsibility to send troops to the scene — the military chain of command took that responsibility. The Defense Department attempted to send help to the scene, but was unable to reach Benghazi before the deaths occurred.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There was no sufficient evidence that Clinton was made aware of those requests for more security prior to the attacks. \n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Hot temperatures in a car can cause hand sanitiser to catch fire without a spark.\n\nQ1: Can hand sanitiser catch fire?\nA1: Alcohol is flammable, and hand sanitisers often contain alcohol, meaning it can ignite easily. Never use too much and be careful where you use it. For example, if you’re out camping, don’t use these products close to the fire.\n\nQ2: Can alcohol based hand sanitiser ignite without being near a flame or spark?\nA2: As an alcohol, it is highly flammable in the presence of heat, sparks, or an open flame.\n\nQ3: Is a hot car hot enough to ignite an alcohol based substance?\nA3: No answer could be found.\n\nQ4: Have there been any reported incidents of alcohol based hand sanitiser catching fire in a hot vehicle?\nA4: No answer could be found.\n\nQ5: At what heat would alcohol ignite without a spark?\nA5: The autoignition temperature is the temperature at which a substance will burst into flames without an outside ignition source, such as a spark or a flame. At the auto-ignition temperature, spontaneous combustion occurs. According to the SDS for methanol, the auto ignition temperature is 464 °C.\n\nQ6: How hot would a car get in the sun?\nA6: A hot car can reach temperatures over 150 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer.\n\nQ7: What is 150 degrees fahrenheit in celcius?\nA7: 150 °F = 65.55556 °C\n\nQ8: Is it possible for a car to reach 464 °C?\nA8: No, because Even in extreme heats of almost 50 degrees, cars can possibly reach around 90c. Recorded dashboard temperatures during regular summer heat around 40c is around 70c.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Hand sanitiser is highly flammable only in the presence of heat, sparks, or an open flame.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Trump made sure no more lives were lost in Baghdad\n\nQ1: What was Donald Trump's reaction to the US embassy storming in Iraq in 2020?\nA1: On Tuesday morning, President Trump tweeted: \"Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!\"\n\nQ2: Did Trumps response in 2020 stop any more deaths in Baghdad?\nA2: No answer could be found.\n\nQ3: How did President Donald Trump prevent more deaths in Baghdad?\nA3: No answer could be found.\n\nQ4: What did the Trump administration do after the storming of the U.S. embassy in Iraq?\nA4: Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced Tuesday that the Pentagon would send about 750 soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, N.C., to the Middle East.\n\nAdditional forces from the division’s Immediate Response Force are prepared to deploy over the next several days, he said in a written statement.\n\n“This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today,” Esper said. “The United States will protect our people and interests anywhere they are found around the world.”",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: there is not enough evidence that trump prevented loss of lives in Baghdad\n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: California is refusing to cooperate with the “Federal Election Integrity Program.”\n\nQ1: What is the Federal Election Integrity Program?\nA1: No answer could be found.\n\nQ2: Has there been a US executive order about election integrity?\nA2: Yes, because Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017\n\nEstablishment of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Seems that the election integrity programme is not in place anymore, therefore the claim is refuted\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: California is registering non-citizens to vote.\n\nQ1: Are non-citizens allowed to vote in California?\nA1: In the November 2016 election, San Francisco voters passed Proposition N, Non-Citizen Voting in School Board Elections, by a vote of 54% to 46%.\n\nProposition N is a Charter amendment that extends the voting rights in San Francisco School Board elections to non-citizen residents of San Francisco who are of legal voting age, not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction, and who are parents, legal guardians, or legally recognized caregivers of children under the age of 19 living in San Francisco.\n\nQ2: Are non-citizens in San Francisco allowed to vote in state or federal elections?\nA2: No, because They can’t vote in state or federal elections\n\nQ3: Other than San Francisco, do other California cities allow non-citizens to vote on school boards?\nA3: No, because San Francisco is the only place in America where the practice is currently legal.\n\nQ4: What are the requirements for non-citizens to vote in the school board election?\nA4: Proposition N is a Charter amendment that extends the voting rights in San Francisco School Board elections to non-citizen residents of San Francisco who are of legal voting age, not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction, and who are parents, legal guardians, or legally recognized caregivers of children under the age of 19 living in San Francisco.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Q2 is not needed he answer is a 2nd answer to Q1.\nThe answer to Q3 is correct but, looking at the source, a better answer could have been given explaining this.\nHowever, the Q&A clearly indicate that the claim is cherrypicking.\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: There have been 317 criminal indictments under three recent Republican presidents and only three indictments under three recent Democratic presidents.\n\nQ1: How many indictments have been made during republican presidents terms?\nA1: 142",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: It seems that the number for republican indictments is significantly lower. Therefore, the label is refuted\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Nigeria owed its foreign creditors $81.274 billion in 2019, despite being “debt free” in 2007 after all its external loans were “paid off”.\n\nQ1: What was Nigeria's International Debt in 2019?\nA1: $27.163 billion of external debt\n\nQ2: What was Nigerias international debt in 2007?\nA2: Nigeria's debt records show the country still owed external lenders $3.65 billion in 2007",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The answers and sources show that both parts of the claim are not correct so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: U.S President Donald Trump's transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, sent a 97 million dollar contract to help her husband, Mitch McConnell's re-election bid.\n\nQ1: When was this claim made?\nA1: 29/12/2019\n\nQ2: Who is Mitch McConnell?\nA2: Senator of Kentucky\n\nQ3: Did Kentucky get a $97 million contract from the US government?\nA3: June 8, 2018\nWASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced today that the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded a $67 million federal grant to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) to fund much-needed improvements to Interstate 75 (I-75)/ Interstate 71 (I-71) in Boone County. Senator McConnell contacted the department to support his constituent’s application to the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) competitive federal grant program.\n\nQ4: When did McConnell announce his re-election bid?\nA4: 06/08/2018\nMcConnell formally announced Saturday his plans to seek a seventh term, speaking at a Republican breakfast in western Kentucky ahead of the Fancy Farm picnic, which is the bipartisan political event of the year in the commonwealth.\n\n“I’m going to be running for re-election in 2020,” McConnell said. “I don’t like starting late.”\n\nQ5: How much grant did the Department of transportation send to Kentucky\nA5: Northern Kentucky will get $67.4 million from the federal government to address traffic problems on Interstate 75.\n\nNo, it’s not for the Brent Spence Bridge, that’ll require $2.5 billion, but a little further south in Boone County.\n\nKentucky was given the money Friday to rebuild two I-75/I-71 interchanges in Boone County as part of President Donald Trump's pledge to rebuild America's infrastructure.\n\nQ6: When did Mitch McConnell announce his re-election plan\nA6: McConnell formally announced Saturday his plans to seek a seventh term, speaking at a Republican breakfast in western Kentucky ahead of the Fancy Farm picnic, which is the bipartisan political event of the year in the commonwealth.\n\n“I’m going to be running for re-election in 2020,” McConnell said. “I don’t like starting late.”\n\nThe McConnell announcement was not exactly a surprise.\n\nQ7: How was the grant tied to his re-election\nA7: Chao’s designation of Inman as a special intermediary for Kentucky — a privilege other states did not enjoy — gave a special advantage to projects favored by her husband, which could in turn benefit his political interests. In such situations, ethicists say, each member of a couple benefits personally from the success of the other.\n\n“Where a Cabinet secretary is doing things that are going to help her husband get reelected, that starts to rise to the level of feeling more like corruption to the average American. … I do think there are people who will see that as sort of ‘swamp behavior,’” said John Hudak, a Brookings Institution scholar who has studied political influence in federal grant-making.\n\nIn fact, days after launching his 2020 reelection campaign McConnell asked Owensboro’s mayor to set up a luncheon with business and political leaders at which the senator claimed credit for delivering the grant.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: While it seems a grant was given which could have helped Mitch McConnels re-election bid, The amount was $67m not $97m as stated in claim.\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: A 13-year-old boy attacked at a northern California skate park by Hispanic youths because he was white and a supporter of President Trump.\n\nQ1: why was a 13 year old boy attacked by Hispanic youths\nA1: In a written statement, Corning, California Police said \"It did not appear that race or political affiliation was the cause of the problem,\"",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: refuted via Answer and police statement on source page.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Aysha Renna tweeted a comment celebrating the Pulwama attack in India.\n\nQ1: What is Aysha Renna's official twitter?\nA1: @AyshaRenna\n\nQ2: What twitter account made the claim?\nA2: @ayesha_reena\n\nQ3: Has @AyshaRenna Commented on the claim about celebrating the Pulwama attack in India.\nA3: Yes she said:\n\nDear folks,\nAs expected there are widespread use of Twitter handle mimicking my name like the one in this image. I hereby let you know that those are fake. I don't have any other Twitter account other than @AyshaRenna. Don't get misled by campaigns by vested interests. pic.twitter.com/vBLkendkdd\n\n— Aysha Renna (@AyshaRenna) December 23, 2019",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: This claim is refuted. According to the QA pairs, the claim seems to be from an impersonator account of Aysha Renna. Aysha also tweeted from her official, verified account that she did not send out a tweet celebrating the Pulwama attack. Therefore, this claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: An irrational House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was handcuffed by federal agents as they raided her office.\n\nQ1: Has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi been arrested?\nA1: No, because No, the article who stated this news clearly has \"House Salad Satire with Ranch Dressing\" as one of its clues that the story is satire and not true.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The claim says nothing about her being arrested.\nThe source, whilst satirical, mentions a search warrant only.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: There is a phone scam in which \"these guys only ring once and hang up,\" and if you call back, they can copy your contact list in three seconds as well as your bank or credit details.\n\nQ1: Is There a phone scam in which guys only ring once and hang up, and if you call back, they can copy your contact list in three seconds as well as your bank or credit details?\nA1: This is not true.\n\nQ2: Where did this claim originate from?\nA2: A Facebook post\n\nQ3: What did Facebook label this post as?\nA3: False Information. Checked by independent fact-checkers.\n\nQ4: Is the stated claim credible?\nA4: No, because This post includes inaccurate information about different types of scams. The top portion references the one-ring call scam, which you can find more about here. The purpose of the scam is to get consumers to unknowingly call back international phone numbers and incur charges from international rates or other connection fees.\n\nThis section \"they can copy your contact list in 3sec and if you have a bank or credit details on your phone, they can copy that too\" is false and does not apply to this type of scam.\n\nQ5: What is an example of a real phone call scam?\nA5: Every time you call, you will be charged high international rates or other connection fees. The bad guy gets all or part of those fees.\n\nA new example of how the bad guys try to keep you on the phone is by telling you: “You’ve received a song from someone who loves you. After listening to this song you will find out who sent this song as a gift.” The longer you stay on the call, the more you pay. And the more the bad guy makes.\n\nThese scams are also known as “Wangiri,” which comes from Japan where the scam originated years ago and means one-ring-and-cut. (One ring and done.)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Refuted by alternate factchecking and QA pair provided state its a mixture of scams being presented as one scam.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Prime Minister Modi’s government has not mentioned the National Record of Citizenship (NRC) since his government came to power in 2014 and any implementation of the NRC was limited only to Assam post the Supreme Court directive.\n\nQ1: When did Narendra Modi become prime minister of India?\nA1: May 20, 2014\n\nQ2: Has the prime minister of India talked about India's National Record of Citizenship (NRC) since 2014?\nA2: NRC is an exercise undertaken by prime minister Narendra Modi’s government in Assam between February 2015 and August 2019\n\nQ3: Has the National Record of Citizenship (NRC) been extended to any areas in India, other than Assam?\nA3: India’s home minister Amit Shah has only hinted at the possibility of a nationwide NRC.\n\nQ4: Has the government hinted at the possibility of a nationwide NRC, and in doing so, actually mentioned the NRC since 2014?\nA4: It appears that the government may have mentioned NRC since 2014, but not made changes or suggested extending the scheme.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There is evidence to suggest that Priyanka listened to the rape victims and also that police arrested the protesters\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Pervez Musharraf led a Pakistani commando unit to flush out rebels occupying the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 1979.\n\nQ1: In his memoir, In the Line of Fire, where does Musharraf say that he is in 1979?\nA1: In 1979 he was posted to the Command and Staff College as an instructor. \n\nHe said that he spent two years there, from 1979 to 1981.\n\nQ2: Did Yaroslav Trofimov, a Wall Street Journal reporter and the author of The Siege of Mecca, mention any involvement of Musharraf or Pakistani forces taking part in the response operation in the NPR interview on August 20, 2009.\nA2: There is no mention of either Musharraf or Pakistani forces in this context.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: No evidence to support.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Actress Parineeti Chopra's role as brand ambassador for the 'Beti Bachao Beti Padhao' campaign was cut short after she tweeted condemning the violence against the anti- Citizen Amendment Act protestors.\n\nQ1: Did Actress Parineeti Chopra's post a tweet condemning the violence against the anti- Citizen Amendment Act protestors?\nA1: On December 17, Chopra tweeted condeming violence against CAA protestors saying \"If this is what's gonna happen everytime a citizen expresses their view, forget #CAB, we should pass a bill and not call our country a democracy anymore! Beating up innocent human beings for speaking their mind? BARBARIC.\"\n\nQ2: Did Parineeti Chopra have a role as brand ambassador for the 'Beti Bachao Beti Padhao' campaign?\nA2: The Haryana government got in actor Parineeti Chopra as brand ambassador for the 'Beti Bachao-Beti Padhao' programme.\n\nQ3: Was the actress fired soon after she made the tweet condemning violence against protestors in 2019?\nA3: The Brand reported that, ''News of Parineeti Chopra being dropped for tweeting against #CAA as brand ambassador of 'Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao' is false, baseless and malicious. contract was for 1 year, till April, 2017.Thereafter contract was never renewed\n\nQ4: Who was the brands ambassador in 2019 when the tweet was made?\nA4: Sakshi Malik, bronze Olympic medallist for wrestling, has been the brand ambassador for the yojana since 2016.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Her contract expired and was not renewed, she was not fired \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Jamia Millia Islamia University students, Aysha Renna and Ladeeda Farzana, who have become the faces of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act movement in India, are terrorist sympathisers.\n\nQ1: Where did this allegation come from?\nA1: According to reports, when social media users dug up the girls’ political and religious views, they found a Facebook post of Aysha condemning the hanging of the terrorist Yakub Memon.\n\nQ2: What do the students say about this?\nA2: In a media interview, Aysha says, “A lot of activists had different perspectives about Yakub Memon. So many of them were against his hanging. I’m a History student and have my own perspective. Indian Constitution allows me the right to speech and expression.”\n\nShe also says that her old posts are being used to propagate hatred and divert people’s attention from the right issues. She also added that she wouldn’t comment on her stand on the Yakub Memon issue right now and would want to concentrate on issues that are relevant right now.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Based on she wouldn’t comment on her stand on the Yakub Memon issue \n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Hong Kong uses AI technology using facial recognition to identify protesters if they so much as do anything on the street, so they can follow up with them and detain them later.\n\nQ1: Does Hong Kong use facial recognition in public places?\nA1: Yes, because Facial recognition is a key part of China’s drive to become a world leader in AI technology by 2030,\n\nQ2: Does Hong Kong use facial recognition to identify and prosecute protestors?\nA2: Hong Kong authorities have implemented tracking methods in an attempt to curtail civil unrest by tracking protestors via facial recognition cameras and their cell phones.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Confirmed in answers.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The sixth Democratic presidential debate of the 2020 campaign, hosted by PBS and Politico, had seven candidates, lasted more than 2½ hours — and did not have many statements that merited fact-checking. Here are six claims that caught our attention, some of which may seem familiar from previous debates. Our practice is not to award Pinocchios in debate roundups.\n\nQ1: How many candidates took part in the sixth democratic debate hosted by PBS and Politico in 2019?\nA1: Seven candidates\n\nQ2: How long did the debate last?\nA2: It was scheduled to be three hours long,\n\nQ3: Who hosted the sixth democratic debate in 2019?\nA3: It was co-hosted by PBS and Politico",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The answers and sources show that the claim is correct so the claim is supported.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: 50 Journalists who were in Mangaluru to cover anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests were fake journalists that had come from Kerala and have been arrested.\n\nQ1: What is the date of the claim?\nA1: 20th December 2019\n\nQ2: What country does the claim refer to?\nA2: Mangaluru, India.\n\nQ3: Were Journalists arrested in Mangaluru in December 2019?\nA3: Yes, because Journalists were arrested according to the Mangaluru police.\n\nQ4: Why were they arrested?\nA4: They failed to produce proof of ID\n\nQ5: How many Journalists were arrested?\nA5: around 15 journalists from prominent Malayalam news outlets",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Number of arrests does not match claim and Answers given indicate from genuine News Corporations.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Hong Kong has banned protesters from wearing face masks.\n\nQ1: Can protestors wear face masks?\nA1: Yes, because Hong Kong mask ban lifted: court refuses government request to suspend earlier ruling that it was unconstitutional\n\nBut judges warn their decision ‘is not and should not be regarded as an encouragement for any person to cover their face’",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The Q&A pair sate that the a court in Hong kong had made a ruling which was upheld on appeal that face masks relating to protestors wearing them are allowed to be worn. which disagrees with the claim saying they are banned.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Before he was mayor, Pete Buttigieg ran statewide in Indiana and lost by 20 points.\n\nQ1: How many votes did Pete Buttigieg recieve when he ran for state treasurer in Indiana in 2010?\nA1: 37.5 percent of the vote.\n\nQ2: Did Pete Buttigieg lose when he ran for state treasurer in Indiana in 2010?\nA2: Yes, because Pete Buttigieg did lose the state treasurer in Indiana in 2010.\n\nQ3: How many points did Pete Buttigieg lose by when he ran for state treasurer in Indiana in 2010?\nA3: Nearly 25% points",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: the 25 points he lost by were close enough to make this accurate\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Donald Trump is rated international public opinion polls below Xi Jinping.\n\nQ1: Where is Donald Trump ranked in the international public opinion polls?\nA1: He is ranked below Xi Jinping\n\nQ2: How many countries were included in the poll?\nA2: 25 different countries",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: according to the question-answer pairs this claim is true\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Real wages went up last year 1.1%\n\nQ1: How much did USA real wages go up in 2018?\nA1: Real average weekly earnings went up by 1.1% in 2018.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Real wages went up 1.1% in 2018.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: 95% percent of America's customers are outside it's borders.\n\nQ1: How big is the US Population?\nA1: 331,883,976.\n\nQ2: Who are the US's biggest trade partners for exporting?\nA2: 1. Canada\n2. Mexico\n3. China\n4. Japan\n5. United Kingdom\n\nQ3: What is the worlds population?\nA3: 7,618,485,243.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: I do not understand why the 3rd QA is relevant . But from the rest of the QA there is no information about how many customers are outside of the US borders. Therefore the claim is refuted \n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Heavy Artillery in Donbas comes from sympathetic governments and not Russia.\n\nQ1: When did the Donbas conflict start?\nA1: Russia has denied involvement in the Donbas conflict that erupted in April 2014\n\nQ2: Is there evidence of Russian heavy artillery being used by separatists in the Donbas confilct?\nA2: Yes, because While it is impossible to give exact figures on how much\nequipment has been provided to separatists by the Russian\ngovernment, it is clear that a wide variety of vehicles and\narms—used almost exclusively by the Russian military—are\nin use in eastern Ukraine. Moreover, thousands of trained\nRussian military forces have been operating and using Russian military equipment.41 Not only are these pieces of military equipment transferred from Russia to Ukraine, they are\nalso used by Russians,",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The Q&As show that artillery in Donbas has involved Russia, and there is evidence of this. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Former European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker said that \"the world's most foolish voters are from India\"\n\nQ1: Where was this claim published?\nA1: The European Times\n\nQ2: What is the European Times?\nA2: Independent media agency\n\nQ3: Did Jean-Claude Juncker say that \"the world's most foolish voters are from India\"?\nA3: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: No evidence to support claim.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Pete Buttigieg won voting with 80% in Indiana.\n\nQ1: How many votes did Buttigieg win by in 2015?\nA1: 8,515 to 2074 against his republican opponent Kelly S Jones, so it was 80.4% of the vote.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Correct\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Elizabeth Warren proposed tax for the wealthy is two percent for millionaires and billionaires\n\nQ1: Who is Elizabeth Warren?\nA1: Elizabeth Warren is a senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, US\n\nQ2: What were her proposals regarding wealth tax?\nA2: We write regarding your proposal to impose a progressive annual wealth tax on\nAmerican households with net worth (sum of all assets net of debts) above $50 million.\nThe tax would be 2% on the net worth above $50 million with an additional 1% tax on\nnet worth above $1 billion.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Elizabeth Warren proposed the combination of the 2% tax above $50 million and the billionaire surtax would\nraise $187 + $25 = $212 billion in 2019.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Donald Trump did not support the people in Hong Kong standing up for democracy.\n\nQ1: Did Trump take any actions to show support for the people of Hong Kong?\nA1: President Donald Trump signed legislation passed by Congress supporting Hong Kong protesters",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Evidence show that Trump has signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 in November 2019 to support the protestors in Hong Kong.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Russian Authorities are not moving toward closing off the Russian internet from the global internet using the \"Sovereign Internet law\" which came into effect on November 1st 2019.\n\nQ1: What is the Russian Sovereign Internet law?\nA1: The law requires internet service providers to install network equipment - known as deep packet inspection (DPI) - capable of identifying the source of traffic and filter content. In practice, this will allow the country's telecommunications watchdog Roskomnadzor to be more effective at blocking sites.\n\nQ2: What will the law allow the authorities to do ?\nA2: It gives the Kremlin the possibility to switch off connections within Russia or completely to the worldwide web \"in an emergency\". It is up to the government to decide what constitutes a threat and what actions should be taken.\n\nRussia is seeking to route the country's web traffic and data through state-controlled points, reducing reliance on foreign servers over which it has less control.\n\nQ3: Could the law be used to block global internet from Russian users?\nA3: Yes, Campaigners say the law, which was signed by President Vladimir Putin earlier this year, is an attempt to increase censorship, building on the internet legislation that already curtails freedom of expression and privacy.\n\n\"Now the government can directly censor content or even turn Russia's internet into a closed system without telling the public what they are doing or why,\" said Rachel Denber, Human Rights Watch's deputy Europe and Central Asia director.\n\nThe law, observers say, allows the government to block content without judicial consent and leaves users unaware about what information is being blocked and why.\n\nChristian Mihr, from the group Reporters Without Borders, said: \"[The law] proves that the Russian leadership is ready to bring the entire network infrastructure under political control in order to cut off the digital information flow whenever needed.\"\n\nQ4: What actions have been made, after the law came into place?\nA4: As a test, the russian government cut off a part of the access to the global internet.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Questions doesn't help to acertain if the Russian government intend to close off the Russian Internet or not \n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Failed Senate Impeachment Conviction Means Trump Can Run Two More Times\n\nQ1: Can someone run for president more than 2 terms?\nA1: No, a President can not serve a third term whether the terms are consecutive or not. The 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution enacted after Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was elected president for a fourth term, imposes a two-term limit on presidential candidates and was established to formalize a tradition George Washington started by refusing to run for a third term in 1796.\n\nQ2: How many terms can a U.S. president serve?\nA2: No more than two",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: QA pair confirms presidents can only have 2 terms.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: China produces ninety percent of global carbon emissions.\n\nQ1: Who is the world leader in total carbon dioxide emissions\nA1: China is the current world leader\n\nQ2: What percentage of the total world carbon dioxide emissions does China produce\nA2: 28.8%",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: China produces 28.8 % of the carbon emissions in the world so this claim was not true\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Americans are paid for donating blood.\n\nQ1: Is it legal in the United States to be a paid blood donor?\nA1: No, because The FDA does not technically prohibit monetary (cash) payments for blood donations.\n\nQ2: Do hospitals accept 'paid donors'?\nA2: No, because Blood or plasma that comes from people who have been paid for it cannot be used to human transfusion.\n\nQ3: Does every Amewrican get paid for donating blood?\nA3: It seems that while blood donations are not compensated, blood plasma is. However, there is no law prohibiting the donation of blood be compensated (see answer above)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Although from the Q&As you can see that some people do get paid for donating blood, most don't, so the claim is misleading.\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: RBI has said that ₹2000 notes are banned and ₹1000 notes have been introduced\n\nQ1: How do the RBI/central bank make announcements on changes to currency?\nA1: Any communication put forward by the RBI is published on the official website of the Central Bank.\n\nQ2: Have any such announcements been made?\nA2: No such notification is present. Moreover, the same was confirmed to Alt News by the Department of Communication, RBI.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Royal bank of Indias department of communication have said that there have been no announcements about changes.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: RBI said you can exchange ₹2000 notes only up to the amount of ₹50,000\n\nQ1: Did RBI make this announcement?\nA1: No, because communication put forward by the RBI is published on the official website of the Central Bank, where no such notification is present.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the official sources it seems that the infomraiton is refuted\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The Reserve Bank of India said from 1st January 2020, they are going to implement new ₹1000 note\n\nQ1: Has the Reserve Bank of India announced a new ₹1000 note?\nA1: No, because There is no announcement in their press releases.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There is no proof in the answer that the bank of india is implemented a a new 1000 note. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Koalas are functionally extinct because bushfires have continued to destroy their habitat\n\nQ1: What is the definition of functionally extinct?\nA1: This term means there are too few members of a species to perform its function in the ecosystem\n\nQ2: How does the International Union for Conservation of Nature describe the Koala's situation?\nA2: They are listed as vulnerable with 300,000 Koalas in the wild.\n\nQ3: Do experts agree the the Koala is functionally extinct?\nA3: No, because Following the initial declaration of \"functional extinction\" in May, Christine Adams-Hosking, a conservationist at the University of Queensland, penned an article for The Conversation outlining the fate of the koala in Australia. In it, Adams-Hosking made it clear the functional extinction tag had likely been applied with a little too much haste.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Although the bush fires have had a huge impact on the Koalas habitat, they are not deemed as \"Functionally Extinct\"\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: A TMZ news alert claimed 4 people died and 12 were injured after singer Melissa Jefferson aka Lizzo, performed a stage dive at a New York concert in 2019.\n\nQ1: Did TMZ post a news alert saying 4 people died and 12 were injured after singer Melissa Jefferson aka Lizzo, performed a stage dive at a New York concert in 2019.?\nA1: No, because Fake image.\n\nQ2: Where was the news report allegedly give out?\nA2: A facebook post showed a fake image claiming to be a twitter screen shot.\n\nQ3: Did TMZ ever make this tweet?\nA3: No there is no record of them making this tweet on their account.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The images were fake.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: During Michael Bloomberg's mayoral tenure of New York City between 2005 and 2013, the city's carbon footprint was reduced twice as much as the rest of the US.\n\nQ1: What is New York's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 compared to 2005?\nA1: There was a reduction of 12.8 percent in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 2005 levels.\n\nQ2: What was the U.S. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2002 and 2013?\nA2: There was a 6.8 reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2002 and 2013.\n\nQ3: Did other places in the United States perform better than New York City in their decrease in greenhouse gas emissions?\nA3: Yes, because Other places in the United States also performed better than New York City - John Reilly, co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at Massachusetts Institute of Technology\n\nQ4: Which period was the nationwide 6.8 percent drop in emissions nationwide?\nA4: reenpeace noted that the 6.8 percent drop in emissions nationwide covered a different period than the New York City report, which includes years 2014 and 2015, beyond Bloomberg’s mayoral tenure. \n\nwe found the most recent city data show that in Bloomberg’s last year as mayor, 2013, there was a 12.8 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 2005 levels. While close, New York City's reduction between 2005 and 2013 is not quite twice as",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: During Michael Bloomberg's mayoral tenure the city's carbon footprint was reduced to 6.8 %.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said 'women should be raped'.\n\nQ1: Did Congress leader Rahul Gandhi say 'women should be raped'.\nA1: No, because Rahul Gandhi was taking a swipe at the government over rising crimes against women, had said, \"Narendra Modi had said 'Make in India' but nowadays wherever you look, it is 'Rape in India'.\"",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: He didn't say that, he was referring to what PM Modi said \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Trump Mocks Global Warming, Lowballs Sea Level Rise\n\nQ1: Has Donald Trump mocked global warming or under estimated sea level rises?\nA1: Trump, Dec. 10: You’d have windmills all over the place if you had Crooked Hillary, they’d be knocking out those birds left and right. Those windmills, wah, wah wah. Darling, I want to watch television tonight and there’s no damn wind. What do I do? I want to watch the election results, darling, there’s no wind, the damn wind just isn’t blowing like it used to because of global warming, I think. I think it’s global warming. Global warming, no more wind, no more life! The oceans are going to rise. One-eighth of an inch within the next 250 years, we’re going to be wiped out!",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: This quote is definitely mocking global warming and comments on a miniscule sea level rise. \n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: 104 US House Democrats voted for impeachment of US President Donald Trump before the Ukraine call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into activities in Ukraine by Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden’s son Hunter.\n\nQ1: Did 104 Democrats vote for impeachment before the Ukraine letter?\nA1: There was no actual vote on impeachment until the one that ultimately passed.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There was no vote for impeachment before the call took place \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Bernie Sanders lost third place spot in Nevada primary polls to Pete Buttigieg\n\nQ1: What was Bernie Sanders ' spot during the Nevada primary polls\nA1: He won 2nd place in the Nevada primaries after Joe Biden\n\nQ2: Did the New York Times report this claim?\nA2: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: It seems bernie Sandars came 2nd and did not come lower than third, so the claim is incorrect.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Over the past two years, climate and weather disaster damage has cost the U.S. over $400 billion.\n\nQ1: What was the cost of climate damage to the U.S in 2017?\nA1: 2017 was the costliest year on record for natural disasters in the United States, with a price tag of at least $306 billion.\n\nQ2: What was the cost of climate damage to the U.S in 2018?\nA2: wildfires push 2018 disaster costs to $91 billion",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The numbers seem correct\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Finkenauer voted to extend the ExIm bank.\n\nQ1: How did Finkenauer vote on extending the ExIm bank?\nA1: AYE (in favour)",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Seems that the vote was extended. Therefore the claim is supported \n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The Export-Import Bank “costs taxpayers billions in corporate welfare subsidies.\n\nQ1: How much does it cost taxpayers to run the bank?\nA1: If you guessed $97,000, $6 million or $2 billion, you’re wrong, it says. In fact, it costs $0, and “over the past two decades, Ex-Im has actually generated a surplus of nearly $7 billion for American taxpayers,” according to the tweet.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Reliable news source and it is made clear that it does not cost taxpayers billions. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The Export-Import Bank provides an unfair advantage to large handpicked companies.”\n\nQ1: What is the Export-Import Bank?\nA1: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank or the Bank)—commonly\nreferred to as the official export credit agency (ECA) of the United States—provides\nfinancing and insurance to facilitate the export of U.S. goods and services to support U.S. jobs.\n\nQ2: What kind of companies benefits from the the Export-Import Bank?\nA2: Beneficiaries include Boeing, General Electric, Bechtel and Caterpillar,plus smaller businsses.\n\nQ3: What percentage of aid is provided to smaller businesses?\nA3: All small businesses together got 22 percent of ExIm aid during the 10-year period\n\nQ4: What percentage did Boeing get in aid?\nA4: one third of all aid provided by the bank from 2007 to 2017.\n\nQ5: What % of the companies helped are small businesses?\nA5: Ex-Im provides vital support for small businesses, which make up 90% of the companies assisted by the bank.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Q&A 3 does show that only 22% of small businesses benefit form help form the bank in the claim \nQ&A 1 shows some large company's who benefit from help form the claims bank, with only one of those receiving up to a 3rd of the help offered.\nHowever Q&A 5 then shows conflicting evidence stating that small businesses receive up to 90% of the banks help which is conflicting evidence to Q&A 3\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The ExIm Bank provided taxpayer-backed handouts to foreign companies such as Air China and Saudi Aramco.”\n\nQ1: Which foreign company did the Ex-Im bank authorise a loan to in 2012?\nA1: In its largest job-supporting authorization to date, the board of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) has approved a $4.975 billion direct loan to Sadara Chemical Company for the export of American goods and services required in the construction of a petrochemical complex in Jubail Industrial City II in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.\n\nQ2: What is the relation between Sadara Chemical Company and Saudi Aramco?\nA2: Sadara Chemical Company, organized and existing under the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is a joint venture developed by the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) and Dow.\n\nQ3: Did the Ex-Im Bank provide loans for Air China?\nA3: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: the loans were provided to companies like air china and saudi aramco\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: After the election debate on ITV between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, ITV and the BBC quoted the only poll which didn’t find Jeremy Corbyn to be the winner.\n\nQ1: After the 2019 election debate, did the BBC cherry pick polls that found Boris Johnson the winner?\nA1: No. The BBC used a YouGov poll which was designed to be independent.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The poll body used was one that was independent, there's no mention of the use of another polling agency.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Thai politician Thanathorn Juanroongruangkit faked his military service documents.\n\nQ1: Did Thai politician Thanathorn Juanroongruangkit serve in the military service.\nA1: Yes, because yes",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: It sees that the politician did not fake his service documents. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: It's against the law for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.\n\nQ1: Can Medicare negotiate for drug prices\nA1: Medicare, which insures more than 60 million beneficiaries, doesn't have that power, mostly because Congress stopped it from getting the best drug prices years ago\n\nQ2: What law stops Medicare from negotiating prices and as such use middlemen in their drug purchase\nA2: Medicare Modernization Act. Among other things, it put corporate Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) in charge of acquiring drugs through Medicare's \"Part D\" plan.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The second answer and source show info about the law that stops medicare negotiating prices so the claim is supported.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Zurab Khangoshvili was one of the organizers of explosions in the Moscow metro.\n\nQ1: Who is Zurab Khangoshvili?\nA1: Khangoshvili served as a field commander in the second Chechen war with Russia (August 1999-April 2009) and as an intermediary between Georgian security services and the Chechens. More recently, he helped organize resistance in the Russia-occupied territories of Ukraine. Following several assassination attempts, Khangoshvili sought asylum in Germany with his family.\n\nQ2: What happened to him?\nA2: Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, 40, an ethnic Chechen from Georgia, was killed in Berlin on Aug. 24 in a broad daylight. Witnesses told police the killer rode up on a bicycle, shot Khangoshvili twice and pedaled away. The suspect was captured after being seen dumping a wig, handgun and his bicycle in the Spree River.\n\nQ3: Why was he killed?\nA3: The Berlin general prosecutor said the murder was a professional operation. According to Western media reports, German prosecutors suspect it was a state-sponsored contract killing. Russian officials have strongly denied any connection.\n\nQ4: Was Zelimkhan Khangoshvili a wanted man in Russia and one of the organizers of explosions in the Moscow metro?\nA4: Putin’s assertion that Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, was “wanted” in Russia could not be verified. As Polygraph.info previously reported, neither the name Zelimkhan Khangoshvili, nor his adopted name Tornike Kavtarashvili, are on the official list of terrorist suspects wanted in Russia. If Russia is seeking his extradition for terrorism, details have not been disclosed.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There is nothing I the QAs that would indicate that he was involved in the metro explosion. Therefore the claim is refuted \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: A female army sergeant who became a hero for her war-time actions is the first woman to earn a Silver Star since WWII.\n\nQ1: Who was the first woman to receive a silver a Silver Star after world war 2?\nA1: Leigh Ann Hester On June 16, 2005",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: True\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Facebook meme suggests that the measles vaccine caused 2019 Samoa measles outbreak\n\nQ1: When did the Samoa outbreak of measles occur?\nA1: Of the 28 specimens of suspected measles cases sent to Victorian Infectious Disease Reference\nLaboratory Melbourne, Australia on the 30th Sept 2019, twelve (12) results have been received over\nthe week end. Of these twelve there were four confirmed cases; one adult and three children. All have\nbeen treated and discharged with no complications.\nOn the 2nd of October 2019, we sent another 8 specimens of suspected measles cases. Current results\nreceived this afternoon of these eight specimens sent revealed three new confirmed cases. Of these\nthree positive cases, two were children under five years and 1 was an adult of 22 years old. All have\nbeen treated and discharged.\nA total of seven confirmed cases have been reported to date. In anticipation, we now confirm a\nMeasles Epidemic.\n\nQ2: What strain of measles caused the outbreak in Samoa?\nA2: The outbreaks in Samoa\nand Tonga are caused by the D8 strain (genotype) of measles virus\n\nQ3: What genotype is used in measles vaccines?\nA3: All vaccine strains (e.g. Moraten, Edmonston-Zagreb) are genotype A.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: the measles outbreak was a different strain than that used in the vaccine. Therefore the vaccine could not have triggered the outbreak. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: China responsible for 90 percent of the world's carbon emissions.\n\nQ1: When was this claim made?\nA1: 06/12/2019\n\nQ2: How much did China's carbon emissions contribute to total global emissions?\nA2: The latest data available in Dec 2019 was for 2018. China's share of total global emissions was estimated at 29.7%, the highest of any country in the world.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: According to the data presented in the source answer, the claim is not correct.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Telangana Police started a service for women safety with a helpline number ‘9969777888’ for tracking the vehicle in which they are travelling through GPRS.\n\nQ1: What is the Indian telephone number 9969777888?\nA1: March 2014 - The Mumbai Police today launched a free SMS service for ensuring safety of women travelling alone or in odd hours.\n\nUnder ‘Travel Safe When Alone’ initiative, any women before taking an auto rickshaw or taxi could message the registration number of the vehicle to a dedicated helpline number 9969777888.\n\nQ2: Is the 9969777888 helpline still active?\nA2: No, because 2017 - Since its inception, the number hasn't received a good response from women users. In nine months, only 1,266 texts were received by women, which dropped to 389. Now, seeing that its Twitter handle was getting a better response, they have shut the helpline.\n\nQ3: Has the Indian police force responded to this claim?\nA3: Yes, because #FakeNews Circulating on #SocialMedia Regarding #Telangana Police Introduced a New Mobile Tracking Number (9969777888) While Travelling in Cabs & Autos it is is Fake News Don't Circulate it.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the 3rd QA it is evident that the sugegsted informationis false. Therefore, the claim is refuted\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Donald Trump got $130 billion increase from Nato.\n\nQ1: What does the $130 billion relate too?\nA1: $130 billion extra, is really talking about indirect funding. Since 2006, each NATO member has had a guideline of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense spending. At a 2014 summit, responding to Russian aggression in Ukraine, NATO members pledged to meet that guideline by 2024.\n\nQ2: Was Donald Trump president in 2014?\nA2: No, because The increased funding was underway long before Trump was in office.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Q/A Dont relate to the real issue. \nTrump misleadingly said he asked NATO to increase their contributions to $130 billion to fund the alliance to guard against Russia.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Roughly one in four fish eaten in the United States was caught here and sent to Asia for processing before being re-imported for American consumers\n\nQ1: Does the United States send fish caught in the country to Asia for processing and then re-import it back to the United States?\nA1: Yes, because An estimated $900 million in fish and seafood on that list (of proposed tariffs) is first caught in the U.S., sent to China for processing into items like fish sticks and fillets, and then imported by U.S. companies to sell to American consumers.\n\nQ2: What percentage of fish eaten in the United States was caught in the country, sent to Asia for processing and then re-imported back to the United States?\nA2: No answer could be found.\n\nQ3: Are there reliable figures to account for domestic consumption of fish and its origin?\nA3: No, because Unfortunately, a dark cloud looms over seafood trade as tariffs recently imposed by the United States and retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other countries hit US seafood exporters and importers, resulting in higher seafood prices for US consumers. Accounting for the realities of globalized supply chains is not only needed for better statistics that support evidence-based policy but is also key to supporting the US seafood industry, achieving sustainable production, and meeting consumer demand.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Not enough evidence provided in QA pairs to support or refute the claim.\n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Over 95% of people living in South Belfast own their own home.\n\nQ1: What does the 2011 Census show regarding home ownership in the Belfast South constituency?\nA1: The 2011 Census shows that 56.1% of people in the Belfast South Constituency own their own homes.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The answer and credible source show that the amount of people owning their own home is a lot less than 95% so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: A study showed one in four people have had a package stolen from their residence in the U.S.\n\nQ1: Is there a study showing how many mail packages are stolen from homes in the U.S?\nA1: Yes, because 2019 PACKAGE THEFT REPORT\n\nQ2: In the 2019 package theft report how many respondents experienced package theft?\nA2: Nearly 1 in 4 respondents stated that they had personally experienced package theft.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the 2nd claim it s evident that the claim is supported \n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Police have launched a free ride scheme in LUDHIANA where any women who is alone & not able to find vehicle to get home between 10pm-6am can call helpline numbers (1091 & 7837018555) 24×7. PCR vehicle will drop her home Free of Cost.\n\nQ1: Is there a free ride home scheme for women in LUDHIANA?\nA1: LUDHIANA:In a first ever initiative by the Punjab Police, the Ludhiana Commissionerate has launched a free-ride scheme for women who are alone and fail to find a ride in odd hours. Women can call the police helpline numbers and request for a vehicle to them at home.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The answer and source show that there is a free ride scheme so the claim is supported.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Northern Ireland remains the only UK jurisdiction without funded childcare provision.\n\nQ1: What UK Government funding is available for childcare in Northern Ireland?\nA1: UNIVERSAL CREDIT FOR CHILDCARE\nMay be available for:\n-For working families claiming Universal Credit, in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales\n-With children under 17*\n-Up to 85% of eligible childcare costs\n-Who aren't receiving Tax-Free Childcare\n\nQ2: What funding is available from NI Government services?\nA2: All pre-school places available under the Pre-School Education Programme are funded by the government. Parents don't pay for these places. \nFunded pre-school education places are provided in:\nnursery schools\nprimary schools with nursery units\nvoluntary and private pre-school education settings with government-\n\nQ3: Does Northern Ireland offer free (funded) childcare for childeren under 3 years old?\nA3: Yes, because Some families can get free childcare for children from age 2 for 15 hours per week over 38 weeks per year.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The QandA pairs clearly show that there is help for childcare which is funded so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Male birth control testing has been halted in India after 30 test subjects’ testicles exploded during sexual intercourse.\n\nQ1: What was the source of the claim that male birth control testing has been halted in India after 30 test subjects’ testicles exploded during sexual intercourse?\nA1: The source of the article was from a satire website called n pas, which also has a Facebook page under another name.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The source of the claim was found to be satirical and so the claim is false.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: There's a titanic battle between American nationalism and American liberal globalism. Donald Trump embodies the first camp, and half of the Americans support him on this issue, believing that the U.S. spends too much [in terms of] manpower and resources on foreign policy.\n\nQ1: How many Americans think that USA spends too much manpower and resources on foreign policy?\nA1: 69%\n\nQ2: What percentage of Americans say that NATO membership is good for the USA?\nA2: 77%\n\nQ3: How does Trump represent American nationalism?\nA3: He would like to withdraw from NATO, as he feels other countries are not spending enough of their GDP on defense.\n\nQ4: Is the battle for pro-NATO bill really titanic?\nA4: No, he bill was passed unanimously by both Republicans and democrats",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The evidence is conflicting, although 69% of Americans think that USA spends too much manpower and resources on foreign policy. There are 77% who say that NATO membership is good for the USA. The pro-NATO bill was also passed unanimously by both Republicans and democrats.\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Defendants charged with producing, directing or promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child will be arraigned & set free.\"\n\nQ1: What is the new bail reform law?\nA1: On April 1, 2019, New York State passed sweeping criminal justice reform legislation that eliminates money bail and pretrial detention for nearly all misdemeanor and nonviolent felony defendants; requires prosecutors to disclose their evidence to the defense earlier in case proceedings; promotes speedy trial rights; and reduces the maximum length of a jail sentence for people convicted of a misdemeanor from one year to 364 days (avoiding deportation exposure for many immigrants convicted of minor crimes).\n\nQ2: Can defendants charged with promoting child pornography be set free under the new law?\nA2: No answer could be found.\n\nQ3: Can defendants be set free under the current law for committing child pornography offences?\nA3: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: the first Q and A set offer some insight into the claim but offers only what a law connected to the claim entails.\nThe other Q and A pairs offer no answer at all towards the claim and so there is not enough evidence to form a label other than 'not enough evidence.\n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Donald Trump is waging a trade war against Wisconsin farmers forcing 1600 dairy farms to close.\n\nQ1: What was the number of adiry farms in Wincousin before and after Trump came into power\nA1: Wisconsin had 9,288 dairy farms on Feb. 1, 2017 — about two weeks after Trump was sworn in. By Dec. 1, 2019, that number dropped to 7,337, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That’s a loss of 1,951 farms, even more than Pocan referenced.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: the loss is actually more than quoted in the claim but enough to support it \n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Policemen distributing tasbih, prayer beads used by Muslims, and wishing Jummah Mubarak after Uddhav Thackeray was sworn in as the chief minister of Maharashtra\n\nQ1: When was the claim made\nA1: 02/12/2019\n\nQ2: When was Uddhav Thackeray sworn into office\nA2: Uddhav Thackeray' was sworn in as CM on November 28 2019.\n\nQ3: Why were policemen distributing tasbih, prayer beads used by Muslims, and wishing Jummah Mubarak?\nA3: With a view to foster and reinforce the spirit of communal harmony, national integration and pride in vibrant, composite culture and nationhood, the “Qaumi Ekta Week” will be observed all over the country, from tomorrow to 25th November 2018: Ministry of Home Affairs\n\nQ4: When was Qaumi Ekta Week celebrated?\nA4: 19.11.2019 TO 25.11.2019\n\nQ5: Was there continued celebration after the 25th of November to celebrate Qaumi Ekta Week?\nA5: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: QA pairs do not state if or why policemen were giving out prayer beads used by muslims or wishing them Jummah Mubarak.\n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Eating bitter guard (aka gourd) or radish after eating ladyfinger can cause medical problems.\n\nQ1: What is bitter gourd?\nA1: Momordica charantia (commonly called bitter melon; bitter apple; bitter gourd; bitter squash; balsam-pear; with many more names listed below)[1] is a tropical and subtropical vine of the family Cucurbitaceae, widely grown in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean for its edible fruit. Its many varieties differ substantially in the shape and bitterness of the fruit.\n\nQ2: What are the health risks of eating bitter gourd after eating lady fingers?\nA2: No answer could be found.\n\nQ3: What are the health risks of eating radishes after eating lady fingers?\nA3: No answer could be found.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the answer there is not enough information about the claim. Therefore the label is not enough evidence\n\nverdict: 'Not Enough Evidence'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Video shows police distributing tasbeehs as a part of Shiv Senas secularism campaign.\n\nQ1: Why were the Tasbeehs distributed by the police\nA1: the tasbeeh distribution was part of the National Integration Week (Qaumi Ekta Week) - a community outreach exercise organised by the Ministry of Home Affairs.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: It seems that the tasbeehs were distributed due to other reason, therefore the claim is refuted\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Former Ukraine President Poroshenko actively worked on behalf of US Secretary Hillary Clinton.\n\nQ1: Was Poroshenko a former president of Ukraine?\nA1: Yes, because He was president from 7 June 2014 to 20 May 2019\n\nQ2: Had Petro Poroshenko ever worked closely with Hillary Clinton?\nA2: Ukrainian Government worked to aid Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections. The actions taken by government officials included disseminating “documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested The they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.\n\nQ3: Is there evidence that Hillary Clinton met or worked with Petro Poroshenko personally?\nA3: Yes, because Hillary Clinton and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko met shortly before the 2016 election",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The Ukrainian Government under Poroshenko administration worked to aid Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential elections.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: As of December 2019 the Narendra Modi govt had enacted a new law on self-defence, to combat crimes against women in India.\n\nQ1: What new self-defence laws did Modi government enact?\nA1: There is no record of any new self-defense laws enacted by Modi government to combat crimes against women. Right of Private defense (section 96 of the Indian Penal Code) is an existing law.\n\nQ2: WHat does section 233 of the IPC refer to?\nA2: It refers to punishment for counterfeiting coins, not for self defence\n\nQ3: Was there any new law enacted for self defense for crimes that are committed against women?\nA3: No, because The only ocde that exists are the sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code. These state the right of an individual for self-defence. However there is nothing specific about women protecting against crimes",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There was no such law so it is false\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Zip ties on windshield wipers linked to human trafficking\n\nQ1: Has there been reports of people having their windshield wipers being zip tied together?\nA1: Yes, because The police department has received a report of windshield wipers being zip tied.\n\nQ2: Has there been any link between zip tied windshield wipers and kidnapping or trafficking?\nA2: No, because There has been no reported kidnappings, or attempted abductions in relation to zip tied windshield wipers.\n\nQ3: Is there possibly any other nefarious reason for zip tied windshield wipers?\nA3: it’s certainly possible that a would-be thief could have been attempting to use a distraction technique to create an opportunity to steal property (such as a shopping bag or a purse, especially given the time of year and the location)\n\nQ4: what was the law enforement agency report to this claim\nA4: the relation between zip ties on cars and human traffickers “extremely unlikely,”",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: No evidence to support a link between zip tied wipers and human trafficking.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: US governments speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Spent $106K of tax payer Money on a party With Hollywood Elitists\n\nQ1: Where was this posted?\nA1: The story originated from an article published by Daily World Update on November 30, 2019. The site that originally published the story is part of the \"America's Last Line of Defense\" network of satire websites run byself-professed liberal troll Christopher Blair from Maine along with a loose confederation of friends and allies. Blair has been in a feud with fact checking website Snopes for some time now and has also criticized other fact checkers in the past who labeled his work \"fake news\" instead of satire. In reaction to this he has recently rebranded all his active websites and Facebook pages so they carry extremely visible disclaimers everywhere.\n\nQ2: Was this intended to be taken seriously?\nA2: No, because It's from a satire site.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Satire.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: As mayor, Cory Booker, US Democratic presidential candidate and US New Jersey Senator, passed criminal justice reform in a US Republican Senate.\n\nQ1: Did U.S. Sen. Cory Booker pass criminal justice reform?\nA1: Yes, because U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement after the Senate passed the First Step Act, a landmark bill to reform the criminal justice system.\n\n“Our country’s criminal justice system is broken – and it has been broken for decades. You cannot deny justice to any American without it affecting all Americans. That’s why the passage of the First Step Act tonight is so meaningful – it begins to right past wrongs that continue to deny justice to millions of Americans.\n\n“This bill is a step forward for our criminal justice system. By no means can it be the only step – it must be the beginning of a long effort to restore justice to our justice system.\n\n“But for the first time in a long time, with the passage of this bill into law, our country will make a meaningful break from the decades of failed policies that led to mass incarceration, which has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, drained our economy, compromised public safety, hurt our children, and disproportionately harmed communities of color while devaluing the very idea of justice in America.”\n\nBooker is an original cosponsor of the First Step Act passed tonight, and was instrumental in pushing for the inclusion of key sentencing reform provisions in the bipartisan bill.\n\nQ2: What was the Republicans' majority in the Senate when the bill was signed into law?\nA2: 51-47 majority in the Senate.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The bill is shown to be true and passed by the senate, as well as the mayor and majority senate claim shown to be true as shown by the Q&A pairs.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: A screenshot shows a tweet from UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn saying the London Bridge attacker was \"murdered by British Police”.\n\nQ1: Did Jeremy Corbyn tweet saying the London Bridge attacker was \"murdered by British Police\"?\nA1: No, because The screenshot of the tweet supposedly made by Jeremy Corbyn is confirmed as a fake.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Seems from the QA that the claim is actually refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Soros and Clinton paid women to accuse Trump of sexual attacks.\n\nQ1: Who paid women to tell their stories to media outlets about alleged Trump sexual assaults\nA1: A well-known women’s rights lawyer Lisa Bloom sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews\n\nQ2: Did Lisa Bloom get the money from either Hilary Clinton or Soros\nA2: Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The evidence suggests that neither Soros nor Clinton were involved in Trump's sexual assault accusation. Nor were they donors to lawyer Lisa Bloom, who sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race. Hence, this claim is refuted. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Democratic presidential candidate and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker was a Rhodes scholar.\n\nQ1: Where to find information about the people who were awarded the Rhodes scholarship?\nA1: Rhodes Scholar Database.\n\nQ2: Was Senator Cory Booker awarded a Rhodes scholarship?\nA2: Yes, because New Jersey Senator and former Newark Mayor Cory Booker is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School, and attended the University of Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The questions point directly to a database that lists Cory Booker as a Rhodes scholar. \n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Adam Schiff used tax dollars to settle sexual harassment lawsuit witha 19 year old man.\n\nQ1: Has there been a sexual harassment lawsuit against Adam Schiff involving a 19-year old man?\nA1: No, because There are no House Ethics Committee reports about sexual misconduct from Adam Schiff",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: There's no evidence on this lawsuit in the ethics committee of the US house of representatives which Adam Schiff is affiliated with.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Nigeria was exposed to less than $7 billion of debt in 2015.\n\nQ1: What was Nigeria's external debt exposure in 2015?\nA1: $10,718.43 million as of 31/12/2015",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Numbers do not match\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”\n\nQ1: Who is Johannes Bakker?\nA1: Prof. Bakker is a retired professor of Sociology and Anthropology, and Gandhi expert.\n\nQ2: What quote of Gandhi did Professor Bakker refer to which is thematically related?\nA2: If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards\nhim.\n\nQ3: What is the website Quote Investigator?\nA3: This website records the investigatory work of Garson O’Toole who diligently seeks the truth about quotations. Who really said what? This question often cannot be answered with complete finality, but approximate solutions can be iteratively improved over time.\n\nQ4: What did a search on the Quote Investigator reveal?\nA4: Quote Investigator: Gandhi died in 1948, and the earliest close match known to QI appeared many years later in 1974 within a book chapter written by educator Arleen Lorrance. She described her unhappiness while employed at a high school in Brooklyn, New York:[1]\n ...be the change you want to see happen.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The quote in the claim was not said by the entity the claim refers too but a similar one was spoken by that entity. with a very similar meaning according to the Q&A pairs.\n\nverdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Michelle Obama slammed First Lady Melania Trump, saying, \"She's a terrible role model for America's women.\"\n\nQ1: What did Michele say about Melania?\nA1: The article is a work of satire. At the top under the headline, it says in small print, \"Michelle Obama Fan Fiction,\" a clue that the story is made-up. The former first lady never made any such statement. Regardless, the article has been copied \"word-for-word\" by other sites, which fail to include the satirical labeling and present the story as real.\n\nThe Obama Watcher site is part of the \"America's Last Line of Defense\" network of satirical websites run by self-professed liberal troll Christopher Blair. The Maine resident works with a loose confederation of friends and allies. Blair has been in a feud with fact-checking website Snopes, and he has also criticized other fact-checkers who labeled his work \"fake news\" instead of satire. In reaction, he has recently rebranded all his active websites and Facebook pages, so they carry prominent disclaimers everywhere.\n\nQ2: Where did the claim originate from?\nA2: obamawatcher.com\n\nQ3: What is obamawatcher.com?\nA3: Obamawatcher.com is a subsidiary of the “America’s Last Line of Defense” network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery, or as Snopes called it before they lost their war on satire: Junk News\n\nBefore you complain and decide satire is synonymous with “comedy”: sat·ire ˈsaˌtī(ə)r noun: The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, OR ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this site’s pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if you’re still having an issue with that satire thing.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The second Q&A shows that the site that featured the claim is a satirical website so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Only 3 out of 12 regions are net contributors to the UK Treasury\n\nQ1: What does net contributor to the UK treasury mean?\nA1: That they run a net fiscal surplus.\n\nQ2: Which regions of the UK ran fiscal surpluses?\nA2: London, the South East and the East of England all had net fiscal surpluses in the financial year ending (FYE) 2018, with all other countries and regions of the UK having net fiscal deficits.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: This claim is supported. According to the QA pairs, London, the South East and the East of England all had net fiscal surpluses in FY2018. This is 3 regions. Therefore, this claim is supported.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Raising teachers' starting salaries to £30,000 by 2022/2023 would make it among the most competitive in the graduate labour market in England.\n\nQ1: What is the current pay teachers receive?\nA1: Minimum £24,373 in England to £30,480 (Inner London)\n\nQ2: What is an average salary of a graduate in the graduate market in the data from 2016/17?\nA2: We see that graduates’ median earnings rise with the time since they graduated, with average earnings in\n2016/17 ten years after graduation being £30,500, compared to £23,300 three years after and £19,900 one\nyear after.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The figures provided do show that the starting salary for teachers is closer to the 10 year mark for graduates overall. \n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved $4.8 million in impeachment-related consulting fees to the Clinton Foundation.\n\nQ1: Where was this claim posted?\nA1: At the daily world update, a clearly labelled satire news site. The Daily World Update site is part of the \"America's Last Line of Defense\" network of satire websites. Self-professed liberal troll Christopher Blair runs those sites. The Maine resident works alongside a loose confederation of friends and allies. Blair has been in a feud with fact-checking website Snopes, and he has also criticized other fact-checkers who labeled his work \"fake news\" instead of satire. In reaction, he has recently rebranded all his active websites and Facebook pages, so they carry prominent disclaimers everywhere.\n\nQ2: Did Pelosi approve 4.8 million in impeachment fees?\nA2: The story is not true and is clearly labeled as satire. Pelosi did not approve these fees, and as a non-profit organization, the Clinton Foundation would not have the expertise to provide consultations on the impeachment hearings. President Trump was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019. Pelosi, as Speaker, has control over when the process is handed over to the Senate - a chamber she fears is not willing to hold a \"fair\" trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: from the 2nd question and answer pair it seems that the claim is refuted\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Xavier Becerra the California Attorney General says there are now ten million illegal aliens in the state.\n\nQ1: How many people are living illegally in the united states?\nA1: There were 12 million immigrants living in the country illegally as of January 2015, according to the most recent estimate from the Department of Homeland Security. Most recent estimates from two independent groups are similar: The Pew Research Center estimates the number at 10.5 million in 2017, and the Center for Migration Studies says there were 10.7 million people in 2017 living in the U.S. illegally.\n\nQ2: How many people are living illegally in California?\nA2: As for California, estimates for the number of residents living in the state illegally range from 2 million to 3.1 million.\n\nThe Pew Research Center estimated the number was 2 million in 2017, down from 2.2 million in 2016, and the Department of Homeland Security says that it was around 2.9 million in 2015. Based on 2012-2016 data from the Census Bureau, the Migration Policy Institute concluded the undocumented population was 3.1 million.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The answers and sources show the amount in California is a lot less that 10 million so the claim is refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Xavier Becerra the California Attorney General says California will receive thirteen extra seats in congress by including ten million illegal aliens in the 2020 census.\n\nQ1: Can illegal aliens vote in U.S elections?\nA1: No, because You must be a U.S citizen to vote in an election.\n\nQ2: What is an illegal alien?\nA2: foreign born non-citizens who are not legal residents\n\nQ3: Is an illegal alien considered an immigrant?\nA3: No, because Legal immigrants are foreign-born people legally admitted to the U.S. Undocumented immigrants, also called illegal aliens, are foreign-born people who do not possess a valid visa or other immigration documentation\n\nQ4: Was Xavier Becerra referring to illegal immigrants or legal ones?\nA4: Xavier Becerra did not say illegal immigrants, Only Immigrants.\n\nQ5: Did Xavier Becerra say California will receive thirteen extra seats in congress by including ten million illegal aliens\nA5: No, because He refered to The Trump Administration’s Public Charge rule having a profound impact on California’s 10 million immigrants.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the 4th and 5th QA it seems as if Xavier Becerra was misquoted. Therefore the label is refuted \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Dominic Raab posted and then deleted a tweet describing Scotland as a region of England.\n\nQ1: DidDominic Raab post and then delete a tweet describing Scotland as a region of England?\nA1: There is no evidence Mr Raab ever tweeted this, he has denied he ever did and it was covered widely as a fake by the media over a year ago when it first surfaced.\n\nQ2: Who is said to make this tweet in the claim?\nA2: U.K Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab\n\nQ3: Did Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab make the tweet as claimed?\nA3: Mr Raab tweeted about the statement with...\n'Happy to confirm this is a fake tweet' on his official twitter account.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: IT was a fake tweet\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: European countries aren't giving financial support to Ukraine.\n\nQ1: Have European countries given any financial aid to the Ukraine?\nA1: The European Union is the largest donor to Ukraine, and Ukraine is the largest recipient of EU macro-financial assistance to any non-EU country. The European Union has given, on average, over $710 million (€650 million) per year to the country since 2014—almost twice as much as the United States average.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The answer refers only to countries in the European Union but clearly refutes the claim made.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Putin publicly approved Wagner’s activities numerous times.\n\nQ1: Does Wagner operate outside Russian borders\nA1: Yes, because Mercenaries are illegal under Russian law, but that doesn’t stop them from being a central element of the Kremlin’s geopolitical adventurism, whether in Ukraine or, even more clearly, Syria. The tale of Wagner, a St Petersburg outfit at the heart of the fighting in Syria, says much about the privatisation of statecraft and the mobilisation of private enterprise in modern Russia.\n\nQ2: Has President Putin ever supported the idea of Wagner\nA2: Yes, because Back in 2011, Putin himself suggested that “these kind of companies are a way of implementing national interests without the direct involvement of the state",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Putin has supported their work and there is evidence of that from 2011.\n\nverdict: 'Supported'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: The National Committee of the USA's Democratic party gave their computer server to the Ukrainian company CrowdStrike\n\nQ1: Have CrowdStrike Commented on the Allegation?\nA1: We have never had physical possession of the DNC servers.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: Evidence was found that the company themselves CrowdStrike have commented that they never had any physical possession of the DNC servers in question by the claim so if we assume that they are telling the truth then the claim should be refuted.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: CNN admitted the Entire Russian Collusion Theory Was A Hoax\n\nQ1: Where was it claimed that CNN admitted the entire Russian collusion theory was a hoax?\nA1: The claim was made in the headline of an article on the website Last Minute News (TheLast-News.com):\n\"CNN Breaks Down, Finally Admits Entire Russian Collusion Theory Was A Hoax\"\n\nQ2: Does the content of the article on the Last Minute News website make the same claim as its headline (that CNN admitted the Russian collusion theory was a hoax)?\nA2: No, because The article states:\n“It must have been very painful for the folks at CNN to write the report below, but it sure looks like the entire Russian collusion thing was a hoax perpetrated by rogue elements of the FBI, as CNN reports:\n\n\"A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.\n\nThe possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.””\n\nQ3: Does the CNN article on which the claim is based state that the Russian collusion theory is a hoax?\nA3: No, because There is no mention of the Russian collusion theory being a hoax, the article states:\n“American intelligence agencies and the Justice Department have not swayed from their finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election by hacking the Democrats and spreading pro-Trump propaganda online. And even former top Trump campaign officials have corroborated special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that the Trump campaign planned some of its strategy around the Russian hacks, and had multiple contacts with Kremlin-linked individuals in 2016”.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: From the Q&A it seems CNN never said what is in the claim, so it is refuted. \n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
[
{
"content": "Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.\n\nClaim: Nigel Farage stated Nearly two-thirds of British businesses do not make a profit of over £10,000 but are subjected to corporation tax.\n\nQ1: Is it true that 2/3 of British businesses do not make a profit of over £10,000 but are subjected to corporation tax ?\nA1: This is incorrect. Two-thirds of limited companies have corporation tax liabilities of up to £10,000, but fewer than half of British businesses make a profit of less than £10,000.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "justification: The claim begins and is phrased as \"Nigel Farage stated...\" - because of this, the question and answer pairs should therefore be structured in order to verify the authenticity of the alleged quote in the claim. The source document for question 1 lists Nigel Farage as both the leader of the Brexit Party and the first signatory to this Brexit Party \"Contract with the people\" document. The statement referring to Corporation Tax and most relevant to the claim within the document states - \"one million companies - some 66% of the total number - pay less than £10,000. This represents just 6% of Corporation Tax take in 2019; £3.4bn. Total cost £5.1bn per year.\" It doesn't discuss two thirds of British businesses not making a profit of over £10,000, rather that they propose to Zero rate Corporation Tax for the first £10,000 of pre-tax profits. Also the source document in answer 1 doesn't discuss - \"fewer than half of British businesses make a profit of less than £10,000\" as referenced in answer 1.\n\nverdict: 'Refuted'",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Subsets and Splits