gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
Madhvacharya

Context: Madhvacharya was a fierce critic of competing Vedanta schools, and other schools of Indian philosophies such as Buddhism and Jainism. He wrote up arguments against twenty one ancient and medieval era Indian scholars to help establish the foundations of his own school of thought.  Madhvacharya was fiercest critic of Advaita Vedanta, accusing Shankara and Advaitins for example, as "deceitful demons" teaching Buddhism under the cover of Vedanta. Advaita's nondualism asserts that Atman (soul) and Brahman are blissful and identical, unchanging transcendent Reality, there is interconnected oneness of all souls and Brahman, and there are no pluralities. Madhva in contrast asserts that Atman (soul) and Brahman are different, only Vishnu is the Lord (Brahman), individual souls are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there are pluralities. Madhva criticized Advaita as being a version of Mahayana Buddhism, which he regarded as nihilistic. Of all schools, Madhva focussed his criticism on Advaita most, and he wrote four major texts, including Upadhikhandana and Tattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing Advaita.  Madhvacharya disagreed with aspects of Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. Vishishtadvaita school, a realist system of thought like Madhvacharya's Dvaita school, also asserts that Jiva (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended. God Vishnu alone is independent, all other gods and beings are dependent on Him, according to both Madhvacharya and Ramanuja. However, in contrast to Madhvacharya's views, Vishishtadvaita school asserts "qualified non-dualism", that souls share the same essential nature of Brahman, and that there is a universal sameness in the quality and degree of bliss possible for human souls, and every soul can reach the bliss state of God Himself. While the older school of Vishishtadvaita asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", states Sharma, Madhvacharya asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".  Shankara's Advaita school and Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned.  Madhvacharya's style of criticism of other schools of Indian philosophy was part of the ancient and medieval Indian tradition. He was part of the Vedanta school, which emerged in post-Vedic period as the most influential of the six schools of Hindu philosophy, and his targeting of Advaita tradition, states Bryant, reflects it being the most influential of Vedanta schools. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides  Madvacharya believe, What else can you tell me about Madvacharya?
Answer: Madhvacharya believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned.
Madhvacharya

Context: Madhvacharya was a fierce critic of competing Vedanta schools, and other schools of Indian philosophies such as Buddhism and Jainism. He wrote up arguments against twenty one ancient and medieval era Indian scholars to help establish the foundations of his own school of thought.  Madhvacharya was fiercest critic of Advaita Vedanta, accusing Shankara and Advaitins for example, as "deceitful demons" teaching Buddhism under the cover of Vedanta. Advaita's nondualism asserts that Atman (soul) and Brahman are blissful and identical, unchanging transcendent Reality, there is interconnected oneness of all souls and Brahman, and there are no pluralities. Madhva in contrast asserts that Atman (soul) and Brahman are different, only Vishnu is the Lord (Brahman), individual souls are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there are pluralities. Madhva criticized Advaita as being a version of Mahayana Buddhism, which he regarded as nihilistic. Of all schools, Madhva focussed his criticism on Advaita most, and he wrote four major texts, including Upadhikhandana and Tattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing Advaita.  Madhvacharya disagreed with aspects of Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. Vishishtadvaita school, a realist system of thought like Madhvacharya's Dvaita school, also asserts that Jiva (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended. God Vishnu alone is independent, all other gods and beings are dependent on Him, according to both Madhvacharya and Ramanuja. However, in contrast to Madhvacharya's views, Vishishtadvaita school asserts "qualified non-dualism", that souls share the same essential nature of Brahman, and that there is a universal sameness in the quality and degree of bliss possible for human souls, and every soul can reach the bliss state of God Himself. While the older school of Vishishtadvaita asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", states Sharma, Madhvacharya asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".  Shankara's Advaita school and Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned.  Madhvacharya's style of criticism of other schools of Indian philosophy was part of the ancient and medieval Indian tradition. He was part of the Vedanta school, which emerged in post-Vedic period as the most influential of the six schools of Hindu philosophy, and his targeting of Advaita tradition, states Bryant, reflects it being the most influential of Vedanta schools. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who determined which souls are doomed?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Madhvacharya

Context: Madhvacharya was a fierce critic of competing Vedanta schools, and other schools of Indian philosophies such as Buddhism and Jainism. He wrote up arguments against twenty one ancient and medieval era Indian scholars to help establish the foundations of his own school of thought.  Madhvacharya was fiercest critic of Advaita Vedanta, accusing Shankara and Advaitins for example, as "deceitful demons" teaching Buddhism under the cover of Vedanta. Advaita's nondualism asserts that Atman (soul) and Brahman are blissful and identical, unchanging transcendent Reality, there is interconnected oneness of all souls and Brahman, and there are no pluralities. Madhva in contrast asserts that Atman (soul) and Brahman are different, only Vishnu is the Lord (Brahman), individual souls are also different and depend on Vishnu, and there are pluralities. Madhva criticized Advaita as being a version of Mahayana Buddhism, which he regarded as nihilistic. Of all schools, Madhva focussed his criticism on Advaita most, and he wrote four major texts, including Upadhikhandana and Tattvadyota, primarily dedicated to criticizing Advaita.  Madhvacharya disagreed with aspects of Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita. Vishishtadvaita school, a realist system of thought like Madhvacharya's Dvaita school, also asserts that Jiva (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a difference that is never transcended. God Vishnu alone is independent, all other gods and beings are dependent on Him, according to both Madhvacharya and Ramanuja. However, in contrast to Madhvacharya's views, Vishishtadvaita school asserts "qualified non-dualism", that souls share the same essential nature of Brahman, and that there is a universal sameness in the quality and degree of bliss possible for human souls, and every soul can reach the bliss state of God Himself. While the older school of Vishishtadvaita asserted "qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism of souls", states Sharma, Madhvacharya asserted both "qualitative and quantitative pluralism of souls".  Shankara's Advaita school and Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita school are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned.  Madhvacharya's style of criticism of other schools of Indian philosophy was part of the ancient and medieval Indian tradition. He was part of the Vedanta school, which emerged in post-Vedic period as the most influential of the six schools of Hindu philosophy, and his targeting of Advaita tradition, states Bryant, reflects it being the most influential of Vedanta schools. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did  Madvacharya believe is Shiva?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: In what year did Ara Parseghian win the first national title.
Answer: In 1966,
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: what was Ara Parseghian's record for 1966?
Answer: 10-0
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: who was the quarterback for Ara Parseghian in 1966?
Answer: Terry Hanratty,
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What year was Terry Hanratty for Ara Parseghian in 1966?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: who did Ara Parseghian play for the title in 1966?
Answer: Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie.
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was the score of the title game for Ara Parseghian in 1966?
Answer: The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie.
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: did anyone beat Ara Parseghian in 1966?
Answer: he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit
Ara Parseghian

Context: In 1966, Parseghian guided Notre Dame to its first national championship since the Leahy era. Led by quarterback Terry Hanratty, running back Nick Eddy, star receiver Jim Seymour, and fullback Larry Conjar, the offense was best in the nation in scoring, with an average of 36.2 points per game. The defense was second in the country in points allowed, thanks to strong performances by linebacker Jim Lynch and defensive end Alan Page.  The season began with eight straight victories, propelling Notre Dame to the top of the national polls. The team then faced Michigan State (who had Bubba Smith), which ranked second in the polls and was also undefeated. The contest, one among a number referred to as the "game of the century", ended in a 10-10 tie. Parseghian was criticized for winding down the clock instead of trying to score despite having the ball in the final seconds of the game. He defended his strategy by maintaining that several key starters had been knocked out of action early in the game and that he did not want to spoil a courageous comeback from a 10-0 deficit by risking a turnover deep in his own territory late in the game. When Parseghian's team trounced USC 51-0 the following week, critics alleged that he ran up the score to impress poll voters who had split the number-one ranking between Notre Dame and Michigan State following the tie. Subsequent to the USC rout, the final wire service polls gave Parseghian's team the national championship, although Notre Dame did not participate in a post-season bowl game. Nine members of the team were selected as All-Americans, and Parseghian was named coach of the year by Sporting News.  Several winning seasons followed, but Notre Dame did not repeat as national champion in the late 1960s. In 1969, the team finished with an 8-2-1 record and accepted an invitation to play in the postseason Cotton Bowl. With this game, the school ended a long-standing policy of not playing in bowl games. The university urgently needed money to fund minority scholarships and decided to use the proceeds from bowl games for this purpose. Parseghian's team lost the game, 21-17, to the eventual national champion Texas Longhorns. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who was the wide receiver for Ara Parseghian in 1966?
Answer: star receiver Jim Seymour,
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Context: Charles fought continually with the Ottoman Empire and its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.  Suleiman won the contest for mastery of the Mediterranean, in spite of Spanish victories such as the conquest of Tunis in 1535. The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560 (shortly after Charles's death), which severely decimated the Spanish marine arm. At the same time, the Muslim Barbary corsairs, acting under the general authority and supervision of the sultan, regularly devastated the Spanish and Italian coasts, crippling Spanish trade and chipping at the foundations of Habsburg power.  In 1536 Francis I of France allied himself with Suleiman against Charles. While Francis was persuaded to sign a peace treaty in 1538, he again allied himself with the Ottomans in 1542 in a Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1543 Charles allied himself with Henry VIII and forced Francis to sign the Truce of Crepy-en-Laonnois. Later, in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.  Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance. Contacts were positive, but rendered difficult by enormous distances. In effect, however, the Safavids did enter in conflict with the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Safavid War, forcing it to split its military resources. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What conflict did Charles V have with the Ottoman Empire?
Answer: The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Context: Charles fought continually with the Ottoman Empire and its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.  Suleiman won the contest for mastery of the Mediterranean, in spite of Spanish victories such as the conquest of Tunis in 1535. The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560 (shortly after Charles's death), which severely decimated the Spanish marine arm. At the same time, the Muslim Barbary corsairs, acting under the general authority and supervision of the sultan, regularly devastated the Spanish and Italian coasts, crippling Spanish trade and chipping at the foundations of Habsburg power.  In 1536 Francis I of France allied himself with Suleiman against Charles. While Francis was persuaded to sign a peace treaty in 1538, he again allied himself with the Ottomans in 1542 in a Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1543 Charles allied himself with Henry VIII and forced Francis to sign the Truce of Crepy-en-Laonnois. Later, in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.  Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance. Contacts were positive, but rendered difficult by enormous distances. In effect, however, the Safavids did enter in conflict with the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Safavid War, forcing it to split its military resources. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Why did defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 send a wave of terror over Europe?
Answer: The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Context: Charles fought continually with the Ottoman Empire and its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.  Suleiman won the contest for mastery of the Mediterranean, in spite of Spanish victories such as the conquest of Tunis in 1535. The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560 (shortly after Charles's death), which severely decimated the Spanish marine arm. At the same time, the Muslim Barbary corsairs, acting under the general authority and supervision of the sultan, regularly devastated the Spanish and Italian coasts, crippling Spanish trade and chipping at the foundations of Habsburg power.  In 1536 Francis I of France allied himself with Suleiman against Charles. While Francis was persuaded to sign a peace treaty in 1538, he again allied himself with the Ottomans in 1542 in a Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1543 Charles allied himself with Henry VIII and forced Francis to sign the Truce of Crepy-en-Laonnois. Later, in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.  Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance. Contacts were positive, but rendered difficult by enormous distances. In effect, however, the Safavids did enter in conflict with the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Safavid War, forcing it to split its military resources. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides the defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526, did Charles V have other conflicts with the empire?
Answer: in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Context: Charles fought continually with the Ottoman Empire and its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.  Suleiman won the contest for mastery of the Mediterranean, in spite of Spanish victories such as the conquest of Tunis in 1535. The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560 (shortly after Charles's death), which severely decimated the Spanish marine arm. At the same time, the Muslim Barbary corsairs, acting under the general authority and supervision of the sultan, regularly devastated the Spanish and Italian coasts, crippling Spanish trade and chipping at the foundations of Habsburg power.  In 1536 Francis I of France allied himself with Suleiman against Charles. While Francis was persuaded to sign a peace treaty in 1538, he again allied himself with the Ottomans in 1542 in a Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1543 Charles allied himself with Henry VIII and forced Francis to sign the Truce of Crepy-en-Laonnois. Later, in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.  Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance. Contacts were positive, but rendered difficult by enormous distances. In effect, however, the Safavids did enter in conflict with the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Safavid War, forcing it to split its military resources. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did the humiliating treaty signed by Charles V in 1547 state?
Answer: peace treaty
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Context: Charles fought continually with the Ottoman Empire and its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.  Suleiman won the contest for mastery of the Mediterranean, in spite of Spanish victories such as the conquest of Tunis in 1535. The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560 (shortly after Charles's death), which severely decimated the Spanish marine arm. At the same time, the Muslim Barbary corsairs, acting under the general authority and supervision of the sultan, regularly devastated the Spanish and Italian coasts, crippling Spanish trade and chipping at the foundations of Habsburg power.  In 1536 Francis I of France allied himself with Suleiman against Charles. While Francis was persuaded to sign a peace treaty in 1538, he again allied himself with the Ottomans in 1542 in a Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1543 Charles allied himself with Henry VIII and forced Francis to sign the Truce of Crepy-en-Laonnois. Later, in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.  Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance. Contacts were positive, but rendered difficult by enormous distances. In effect, however, the Safavids did enter in conflict with the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Safavid War, forcing it to split its military resources. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides the 1547 treaty with the Ottoman Empire, did Charles V sign any other treaties?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

Context: Charles fought continually with the Ottoman Empire and its sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. The defeat of Hungary at the Battle of Mohacs in 1526 "sent a wave of terror over Europe." The Muslim advance in Central Europe was halted at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.  Suleiman won the contest for mastery of the Mediterranean, in spite of Spanish victories such as the conquest of Tunis in 1535. The regular Ottoman fleet came to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean after its victories at Preveza in 1538 and Djerba in 1560 (shortly after Charles's death), which severely decimated the Spanish marine arm. At the same time, the Muslim Barbary corsairs, acting under the general authority and supervision of the sultan, regularly devastated the Spanish and Italian coasts, crippling Spanish trade and chipping at the foundations of Habsburg power.  In 1536 Francis I of France allied himself with Suleiman against Charles. While Francis was persuaded to sign a peace treaty in 1538, he again allied himself with the Ottomans in 1542 in a Franco-Ottoman alliance. In 1543 Charles allied himself with Henry VIII and forced Francis to sign the Truce of Crepy-en-Laonnois. Later, in 1547, Charles signed a humiliating treaty with the Ottomans to gain himself some respite from the huge expenses of their war.  Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance. Contacts were positive, but rendered difficult by enormous distances. In effect, however, the Safavids did enter in conflict with the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Safavid War, forcing it to split its military resources. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides Charles V's humiliating treaties, is there anything other interesting information?
Answer: Charles V made overtures to the Safavid Empire to open a second front against the Ottomans, in an attempt at creating a Habsburg-Persian alliance.
Allan Bloom

Context: Allan Bloom was born in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1930 to second-generation Jewish parents who were both social workers. The couple had a daughter, Lucille, two years earlier. As a thirteen-year-old, Bloom read a Readers Digest article about the University of Chicago and told his parents he wanted to attend; his parents thought it was unreasonable and did not encourage his hopes. Yet, when his family moved to Chicago in 1944, his parents met a psychiatrist and family friend whose son was enrolled in the University of Chicago's humanities program for gifted students. In 1946, Bloom was accepted to the same program, starting his degree at the age of fifteen, and spending the next decade of his life enrolled at the University in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. This began his lifelong passion for the 'idea' of the university.  In the preface to Giants and Dwarfs: Essays, 1960-1990, he stated that his education "began with Freud and ended with Plato". The theme of this education was self-knowledge, or self-discovery--an idea that Bloom would later write, seemed impossible to conceive of for a Midwestern American boy. He credits Leo Strauss as the teacher who made this endeavor possible for him.  Bloom graduated from the University of Chicago with his Bachelor's Degree at the age of 18. One of his college classmates was the classicist Seth Benardete. For post-graduate studies, he enrolled in the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought, where he was assigned Classicist David Grene as tutor, and went on to write his thesis on Isocrates. Grene recalled Bloom as an energetic and humorous student completely dedicated to studying classics, but with no definite career ambitions. The Committee was a unique interdisciplinary program that attracted a small number of students due to its rigorous academic requirements and lack of clear employment opportunities after graduation. Bloom earned his Ph.D. from the Committee on Social Thought in 1955. He subsequently studied under the influential Hegelian philosopher Alexandre Kojeve in Paris, whose lectures Bloom would later introduce to the English-speaking world. While teaching philosophy at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, he befriended Raymond Aron, amongst many other philosophers. Among the American expatriate community in Paris his friends included leftist writer Susan Sontag. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Allan Bloom's early life like?
Answer: Allan Bloom was born in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1930 to second-generation Jewish parents who were both social workers.
Allan Bloom

Context: Allan Bloom was born in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1930 to second-generation Jewish parents who were both social workers. The couple had a daughter, Lucille, two years earlier. As a thirteen-year-old, Bloom read a Readers Digest article about the University of Chicago and told his parents he wanted to attend; his parents thought it was unreasonable and did not encourage his hopes. Yet, when his family moved to Chicago in 1944, his parents met a psychiatrist and family friend whose son was enrolled in the University of Chicago's humanities program for gifted students. In 1946, Bloom was accepted to the same program, starting his degree at the age of fifteen, and spending the next decade of his life enrolled at the University in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. This began his lifelong passion for the 'idea' of the university.  In the preface to Giants and Dwarfs: Essays, 1960-1990, he stated that his education "began with Freud and ended with Plato". The theme of this education was self-knowledge, or self-discovery--an idea that Bloom would later write, seemed impossible to conceive of for a Midwestern American boy. He credits Leo Strauss as the teacher who made this endeavor possible for him.  Bloom graduated from the University of Chicago with his Bachelor's Degree at the age of 18. One of his college classmates was the classicist Seth Benardete. For post-graduate studies, he enrolled in the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought, where he was assigned Classicist David Grene as tutor, and went on to write his thesis on Isocrates. Grene recalled Bloom as an energetic and humorous student completely dedicated to studying classics, but with no definite career ambitions. The Committee was a unique interdisciplinary program that attracted a small number of students due to its rigorous academic requirements and lack of clear employment opportunities after graduation. Bloom earned his Ph.D. from the Committee on Social Thought in 1955. He subsequently studied under the influential Hegelian philosopher Alexandre Kojeve in Paris, whose lectures Bloom would later introduce to the English-speaking world. While teaching philosophy at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, he befriended Raymond Aron, amongst many other philosophers. Among the American expatriate community in Paris his friends included leftist writer Susan Sontag. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Allan Bloom have any siblings?
Answer: The couple had a daughter, Lucille, two years earlier.
Allan Bloom

Context: Allan Bloom was born in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1930 to second-generation Jewish parents who were both social workers. The couple had a daughter, Lucille, two years earlier. As a thirteen-year-old, Bloom read a Readers Digest article about the University of Chicago and told his parents he wanted to attend; his parents thought it was unreasonable and did not encourage his hopes. Yet, when his family moved to Chicago in 1944, his parents met a psychiatrist and family friend whose son was enrolled in the University of Chicago's humanities program for gifted students. In 1946, Bloom was accepted to the same program, starting his degree at the age of fifteen, and spending the next decade of his life enrolled at the University in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. This began his lifelong passion for the 'idea' of the university.  In the preface to Giants and Dwarfs: Essays, 1960-1990, he stated that his education "began with Freud and ended with Plato". The theme of this education was self-knowledge, or self-discovery--an idea that Bloom would later write, seemed impossible to conceive of for a Midwestern American boy. He credits Leo Strauss as the teacher who made this endeavor possible for him.  Bloom graduated from the University of Chicago with his Bachelor's Degree at the age of 18. One of his college classmates was the classicist Seth Benardete. For post-graduate studies, he enrolled in the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought, where he was assigned Classicist David Grene as tutor, and went on to write his thesis on Isocrates. Grene recalled Bloom as an energetic and humorous student completely dedicated to studying classics, but with no definite career ambitions. The Committee was a unique interdisciplinary program that attracted a small number of students due to its rigorous academic requirements and lack of clear employment opportunities after graduation. Bloom earned his Ph.D. from the Committee on Social Thought in 1955. He subsequently studied under the influential Hegelian philosopher Alexandre Kojeve in Paris, whose lectures Bloom would later introduce to the English-speaking world. While teaching philosophy at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, he befriended Raymond Aron, amongst many other philosophers. Among the American expatriate community in Paris his friends included leftist writer Susan Sontag. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Where was Allan Bloom educated?
Answer: University of Chicago
Allan Bloom

Context: Allan Bloom was born in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1930 to second-generation Jewish parents who were both social workers. The couple had a daughter, Lucille, two years earlier. As a thirteen-year-old, Bloom read a Readers Digest article about the University of Chicago and told his parents he wanted to attend; his parents thought it was unreasonable and did not encourage his hopes. Yet, when his family moved to Chicago in 1944, his parents met a psychiatrist and family friend whose son was enrolled in the University of Chicago's humanities program for gifted students. In 1946, Bloom was accepted to the same program, starting his degree at the age of fifteen, and spending the next decade of his life enrolled at the University in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. This began his lifelong passion for the 'idea' of the university.  In the preface to Giants and Dwarfs: Essays, 1960-1990, he stated that his education "began with Freud and ended with Plato". The theme of this education was self-knowledge, or self-discovery--an idea that Bloom would later write, seemed impossible to conceive of for a Midwestern American boy. He credits Leo Strauss as the teacher who made this endeavor possible for him.  Bloom graduated from the University of Chicago with his Bachelor's Degree at the age of 18. One of his college classmates was the classicist Seth Benardete. For post-graduate studies, he enrolled in the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought, where he was assigned Classicist David Grene as tutor, and went on to write his thesis on Isocrates. Grene recalled Bloom as an energetic and humorous student completely dedicated to studying classics, but with no definite career ambitions. The Committee was a unique interdisciplinary program that attracted a small number of students due to its rigorous academic requirements and lack of clear employment opportunities after graduation. Bloom earned his Ph.D. from the Committee on Social Thought in 1955. He subsequently studied under the influential Hegelian philosopher Alexandre Kojeve in Paris, whose lectures Bloom would later introduce to the English-speaking world. While teaching philosophy at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, he befriended Raymond Aron, amongst many other philosophers. Among the American expatriate community in Paris his friends included leftist writer Susan Sontag. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Other than University of Chicago, did Allan Bloom go to any other schools?
Answer: He subsequently studied under the influential Hegelian philosopher Alexandre Kojeve in Paris,