gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Context: Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity. In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth. Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich. In the late-nineteenth century, in response to attacks from socialist ideas and debates about how society works, and as a means to escape the conundrums of value theory and to answer how values could become prices, marginalist economics arose. This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments to withdraw the study of economies from debates about how society worked and what kind of society we wanted to live in. For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.  Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization. Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy. In reality, a self-adjusting equilibrium fails to occur. Second, the theory puts forth a determinate image of the market. Historically, however, the market has been shown to be indeterminate with different market arrangements. Third, the polemical use of efficiency fails to account for the differences of distribution among individuals, classes, and generations.  The consequences of the marginalist movement were profound for the study of economics, Unger says. The most immediate problem is that under this generalizing tendency of economics, there is no means by which to incorporate empirical evidence and thus to re-imagine the world and develop new theories and new directions. In this way, the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical. Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription, which by definition always assumes a given context. The discipline can only rationalize the world and support a status quo. Lastly, Unger finds that this turn in economics ended up universalizing debates in macroeconomics and leaving the discipline without any historical perspective. A consequence, for example, was that Keynes' solution to a particular historical crisis was turned into a general theory when it should only be understood as a response to a particular situation. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What do u mean the analysis of production and exchange turned away?
Answer: turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity.
Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Context: Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity. In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth. Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich. In the late-nineteenth century, in response to attacks from socialist ideas and debates about how society works, and as a means to escape the conundrums of value theory and to answer how values could become prices, marginalist economics arose. This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments to withdraw the study of economies from debates about how society worked and what kind of society we wanted to live in. For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.  Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization. Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy. In reality, a self-adjusting equilibrium fails to occur. Second, the theory puts forth a determinate image of the market. Historically, however, the market has been shown to be indeterminate with different market arrangements. Third, the polemical use of efficiency fails to account for the differences of distribution among individuals, classes, and generations.  The consequences of the marginalist movement were profound for the study of economics, Unger says. The most immediate problem is that under this generalizing tendency of economics, there is no means by which to incorporate empirical evidence and thus to re-imagine the world and develop new theories and new directions. In this way, the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical. Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription, which by definition always assumes a given context. The discipline can only rationalize the world and support a status quo. Lastly, Unger finds that this turn in economics ended up universalizing debates in macroeconomics and leaving the discipline without any historical perspective. A consequence, for example, was that Keynes' solution to a particular historical crisis was turned into a general theory when it should only be understood as a response to a particular situation. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Roberto Mangabeira Unger believed in scientific objectivity.
Answer: engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity.
Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Context: Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity. In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth. Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich. In the late-nineteenth century, in response to attacks from socialist ideas and debates about how society works, and as a means to escape the conundrums of value theory and to answer how values could become prices, marginalist economics arose. This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments to withdraw the study of economies from debates about how society worked and what kind of society we wanted to live in. For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.  Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization. Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy. In reality, a self-adjusting equilibrium fails to occur. Second, the theory puts forth a determinate image of the market. Historically, however, the market has been shown to be indeterminate with different market arrangements. Third, the polemical use of efficiency fails to account for the differences of distribution among individuals, classes, and generations.  The consequences of the marginalist movement were profound for the study of economics, Unger says. The most immediate problem is that under this generalizing tendency of economics, there is no means by which to incorporate empirical evidence and thus to re-imagine the world and develop new theories and new directions. In this way, the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical. Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription, which by definition always assumes a given context. The discipline can only rationalize the world and support a status quo. Lastly, Unger finds that this turn in economics ended up universalizing debates in macroeconomics and leaving the discipline without any historical perspective. A consequence, for example, was that Keynes' solution to a particular historical crisis was turned into a general theory when it should only be understood as a response to a particular situation. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What did Roberto Mangabeira Unger do after engaging in a quest for scientific objectivity.
Answer: In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth.
Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Context: Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity. In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth. Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich. In the late-nineteenth century, in response to attacks from socialist ideas and debates about how society works, and as a means to escape the conundrums of value theory and to answer how values could become prices, marginalist economics arose. This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments to withdraw the study of economies from debates about how society worked and what kind of society we wanted to live in. For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.  Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization. Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy. In reality, a self-adjusting equilibrium fails to occur. Second, the theory puts forth a determinate image of the market. Historically, however, the market has been shown to be indeterminate with different market arrangements. Third, the polemical use of efficiency fails to account for the differences of distribution among individuals, classes, and generations.  The consequences of the marginalist movement were profound for the study of economics, Unger says. The most immediate problem is that under this generalizing tendency of economics, there is no means by which to incorporate empirical evidence and thus to re-imagine the world and develop new theories and new directions. In this way, the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical. Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription, which by definition always assumes a given context. The discipline can only rationalize the world and support a status quo. Lastly, Unger finds that this turn in economics ended up universalizing debates in macroeconomics and leaving the discipline without any historical perspective. A consequence, for example, was that Keynes' solution to a particular historical crisis was turned into a general theory when it should only be understood as a response to a particular situation. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
Answer: Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory,
Roberto Mangabeira Unger

Context: Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory and engaged in a quest for scientific objectivity. In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth. Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich. In the late-nineteenth century, in response to attacks from socialist ideas and debates about how society works, and as a means to escape the conundrums of value theory and to answer how values could become prices, marginalist economics arose. This movement in economics disengaged economics from prescriptive and normative commitments to withdraw the study of economies from debates about how society worked and what kind of society we wanted to live in. For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.  Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization. Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy. In reality, a self-adjusting equilibrium fails to occur. Second, the theory puts forth a determinate image of the market. Historically, however, the market has been shown to be indeterminate with different market arrangements. Third, the polemical use of efficiency fails to account for the differences of distribution among individuals, classes, and generations.  The consequences of the marginalist movement were profound for the study of economics, Unger says. The most immediate problem is that under this generalizing tendency of economics, there is no means by which to incorporate empirical evidence and thus to re-imagine the world and develop new theories and new directions. In this way, the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical. Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription, which by definition always assumes a given context. The discipline can only rationalize the world and support a status quo. Lastly, Unger finds that this turn in economics ended up universalizing debates in macroeconomics and leaving the discipline without any historical perspective. A consequence, for example, was that Keynes' solution to a particular historical crisis was turned into a general theory when it should only be understood as a response to a particular situation. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Walras' equilibrium theory about?
Answer: attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies of social organization.
Scott Weiland

Context: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994; the couple divorced in 2000. He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000. They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002). Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.  In 2005, Weiland and his son Noah were featured on comedian David Spade's The Showbiz Show with David Spade during a comedy sketch about discouraging music file sharing. Noah has a line during the sketch in which he asks a little girl, "Please buy my daddy's album so I can have food to eat."  Weiland was a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan, as his stepfather is an alumnus. In September 2006, Weiland performed at the University of Notre Dame's Legends Restaurant on the night before a football game. He sang several of his solo songs as well as "Interstate Love Song" and a cover of Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". In a 2007 interview with Blender magazine, Weiland mentioned that he was raised a Catholic.  Mary Forsberg Weiland's autobiography Fall to Pieces was co-written with Larkin Warren and released in 2009. Scott Weiland's autobiography, Not Dead & Not for Sale, co-written with David Ritz, was released May 17, 2011.  In a November 2012 interview with Rolling Stone, Weiland revealed that he was engaged to photographer Jamie Wachtel whom he met during the 2011 filming of his music video for the song, "I'll Be Home for Christmas". Weiland and Wachtel married on June 22, 2013, at their Los Angeles home. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Scott Weiland's family life like?
Answer: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994;
Scott Weiland

Context: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994; the couple divorced in 2000. He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000. They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002). Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.  In 2005, Weiland and his son Noah were featured on comedian David Spade's The Showbiz Show with David Spade during a comedy sketch about discouraging music file sharing. Noah has a line during the sketch in which he asks a little girl, "Please buy my daddy's album so I can have food to eat."  Weiland was a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan, as his stepfather is an alumnus. In September 2006, Weiland performed at the University of Notre Dame's Legends Restaurant on the night before a football game. He sang several of his solo songs as well as "Interstate Love Song" and a cover of Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". In a 2007 interview with Blender magazine, Weiland mentioned that he was raised a Catholic.  Mary Forsberg Weiland's autobiography Fall to Pieces was co-written with Larkin Warren and released in 2009. Scott Weiland's autobiography, Not Dead & Not for Sale, co-written with David Ritz, was released May 17, 2011.  In a November 2012 interview with Rolling Stone, Weiland revealed that he was engaged to photographer Jamie Wachtel whom he met during the 2011 filming of his music video for the song, "I'll Be Home for Christmas". Weiland and Wachtel married on June 22, 2013, at their Los Angeles home. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Where did Scott Weiland marry Janina?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Scott Weiland

Context: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994; the couple divorced in 2000. He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000. They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002). Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.  In 2005, Weiland and his son Noah were featured on comedian David Spade's The Showbiz Show with David Spade during a comedy sketch about discouraging music file sharing. Noah has a line during the sketch in which he asks a little girl, "Please buy my daddy's album so I can have food to eat."  Weiland was a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan, as his stepfather is an alumnus. In September 2006, Weiland performed at the University of Notre Dame's Legends Restaurant on the night before a football game. He sang several of his solo songs as well as "Interstate Love Song" and a cover of Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". In a 2007 interview with Blender magazine, Weiland mentioned that he was raised a Catholic.  Mary Forsberg Weiland's autobiography Fall to Pieces was co-written with Larkin Warren and released in 2009. Scott Weiland's autobiography, Not Dead & Not for Sale, co-written with David Ritz, was released May 17, 2011.  In a November 2012 interview with Rolling Stone, Weiland revealed that he was engaged to photographer Jamie Wachtel whom he met during the 2011 filming of his music video for the song, "I'll Be Home for Christmas". Weiland and Wachtel married on June 22, 2013, at their Los Angeles home. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Scott Weiland have any children?
Answer: They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002).
Scott Weiland

Context: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994; the couple divorced in 2000. He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000. They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002). Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.  In 2005, Weiland and his son Noah were featured on comedian David Spade's The Showbiz Show with David Spade during a comedy sketch about discouraging music file sharing. Noah has a line during the sketch in which he asks a little girl, "Please buy my daddy's album so I can have food to eat."  Weiland was a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan, as his stepfather is an alumnus. In September 2006, Weiland performed at the University of Notre Dame's Legends Restaurant on the night before a football game. He sang several of his solo songs as well as "Interstate Love Song" and a cover of Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". In a 2007 interview with Blender magazine, Weiland mentioned that he was raised a Catholic.  Mary Forsberg Weiland's autobiography Fall to Pieces was co-written with Larkin Warren and released in 2009. Scott Weiland's autobiography, Not Dead & Not for Sale, co-written with David Ritz, was released May 17, 2011.  In a November 2012 interview with Rolling Stone, Weiland revealed that he was engaged to photographer Jamie Wachtel whom he met during the 2011 filming of his music video for the song, "I'll Be Home for Christmas". Weiland and Wachtel married on June 22, 2013, at their Los Angeles home. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Anything else interesting about this article, besides Scott Weiland marrying Janina Castaneda and having two children?
Answer: He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000.
Scott Weiland

Context: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994; the couple divorced in 2000. He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000. They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002). Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.  In 2005, Weiland and his son Noah were featured on comedian David Spade's The Showbiz Show with David Spade during a comedy sketch about discouraging music file sharing. Noah has a line during the sketch in which he asks a little girl, "Please buy my daddy's album so I can have food to eat."  Weiland was a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan, as his stepfather is an alumnus. In September 2006, Weiland performed at the University of Notre Dame's Legends Restaurant on the night before a football game. He sang several of his solo songs as well as "Interstate Love Song" and a cover of Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". In a 2007 interview with Blender magazine, Weiland mentioned that he was raised a Catholic.  Mary Forsberg Weiland's autobiography Fall to Pieces was co-written with Larkin Warren and released in 2009. Scott Weiland's autobiography, Not Dead & Not for Sale, co-written with David Ritz, was released May 17, 2011.  In a November 2012 interview with Rolling Stone, Weiland revealed that he was engaged to photographer Jamie Wachtel whom he met during the 2011 filming of his music video for the song, "I'll Be Home for Christmas". Weiland and Wachtel married on June 22, 2013, at their Los Angeles home. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Mary and Scott Weiland have any children?
Answer: They had two children,
Scott Weiland

Context: Weiland married Janina Castaneda on September 17, 1994; the couple divorced in 2000. He married model Mary Forsberg on May 20, 2000. They had two children, Noah (born 2000) and Lucy (born 2002). Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.  In 2005, Weiland and his son Noah were featured on comedian David Spade's The Showbiz Show with David Spade during a comedy sketch about discouraging music file sharing. Noah has a line during the sketch in which he asks a little girl, "Please buy my daddy's album so I can have food to eat."  Weiland was a Notre Dame Fighting Irish football fan, as his stepfather is an alumnus. In September 2006, Weiland performed at the University of Notre Dame's Legends Restaurant on the night before a football game. He sang several of his solo songs as well as "Interstate Love Song" and a cover of Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here". In a 2007 interview with Blender magazine, Weiland mentioned that he was raised a Catholic.  Mary Forsberg Weiland's autobiography Fall to Pieces was co-written with Larkin Warren and released in 2009. Scott Weiland's autobiography, Not Dead & Not for Sale, co-written with David Ritz, was released May 17, 2011.  In a November 2012 interview with Rolling Stone, Weiland revealed that he was engaged to photographer Jamie Wachtel whom he met during the 2011 filming of his music video for the song, "I'll Be Home for Christmas". Weiland and Wachtel married on June 22, 2013, at their Los Angeles home. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Scott Weiland's family life like? Was he involved?
Answer: Weiland and Forsberg divorced in 2007.
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Abner Doubleday's role in Gettysburg?
Answer: Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What side did Abner Doubleday fight on?
Answer: the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford.
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who were some of Abner Doubleday's comrades?
Answer: Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What were some of Abner Doubleday's victories in the battle?
Answer: leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Abner Doubleday win the battle against ten Confederate brigades?
Answer: their line eventually broke
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Abner Doubleday kill anyone?
Answer: Seven of those brigades sustained casualties
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was the end of the battle like for Abner Doubleday?
Answer: the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle;
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Abner Doubleday receive any medals?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who was Abner Doubleday's commanding officer?
Answer: Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade
Abner Doubleday

Context: At the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, Doubleday's division was the second infantry division on the field to reinforce the cavalry division of Brigadier General John Buford. When his corps commander, Major General John F. Reynolds, was killed very early in the fighting, Doubleday found himself in command of the corps at 10:50 am. His men fought well in the morning, putting up a stout resistance, but as overwhelming Confederate forces massed against them, their line eventually broke and they retreated back through the town of Gettysburg to the relative safety of Cemetery Hill south of town. It was Doubleday's finest performance during the war, five hours leading 9,500 men against ten Confederate brigades that numbered more than 16,000. Seven of those brigades sustained casualties that ranged from 35 to 50 percent, indicating the ferocity of the Union defense. On Cemetery Hill, however, the I Corps could muster only a third of its men as effective for duty, and the corps was essentially destroyed as a combat force for the rest of the battle; it would be decommissioned in March 1864, its surviving units consolidated into other corps.  On July 2, 1863, Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade replaced Doubleday with Major General John Newton, a more junior officer from another corps. The ostensible reason was a false report by XI Corps commander Major General Oliver O. Howard that Doubleday's corps broke first, causing the entire Union line to collapse, but Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness, dating back to South Mountain. Doubleday was humiliated by this snub and held a lasting grudge against Meade, but he returned to division command and fought well for the remainder of the battle. He was wounded in the neck on the second day of Gettysburg and received a brevet promotion to colonel in the regular army for his service. He formally requested reinstatement as I Corps commander, but Meade refused, and Doubleday left Gettysburg on July 7 for Washington.  Doubleday's indecision as a commander in the war resulted in his uncomplimentary nickname "Forty-Eight Hours." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was the relationship like between Abner Doubleday and Maj. Gen. George G. Meade?
Answer: Meade also had a long history of disdain for Doubleday's combat effectiveness,