Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Microwave ovens are a favorite bugaboo of the natural health set, and claims that they were once banned in various countries, including the Soviet Union, are repeated uncritically on numerous natural health websites espousing their purported dangers. For example, a 24 August 2016 article published on the conspiracy-obsessed website Natural News stated: The electromagnetic field (EMF) produced by common household microwaves is something Russia has taken seriously in the past. After conducting thorough research into the health effects of microwave EMFs, Russia determined in 1976 that microwaves were dangerous to their people. In that year, Russia banned the devices to protect their citizenry. Most (but not all) websites ambiguously state that the ban was lifted sometime during or before perestroika, in an effort to warm relations between the two countries. From a purely historical standpoint, this is a dubious narrative at best. However, there is some historical precedent for the purported relationship between microwaves and the Soviet Union. For at least fifteen years prior to 1976, the Soviets had literally been beaming microwave radiation at the American embassy in Moscow in an effort (by their own account) to prevent the United States from electronically eavesdropping — a fact made public that year, in a 28 February 1976 New York Times report: At least the main outlines of what might be called the Case of the Moscow Microwaves have finally emerged. For at least fifteen years the United States Embassy in Moscow has been systematically irradiated by microwaves generated in equipment installed nearby by Soviet intelligence agencies. The objectives of this bombardment presumably were to eavesdrop on conversations in the embassy and to attempt jamming of electronic monitoring equipment installed in and on the embassy. The United States State Department knew about this irradiation and protested from time to time, but the facts were kept secret from both the American public and most of the people in the embassy complex. This public acknowledgement spurred American research into the biological effects of low dose microwave radiation, and later led to an agreement between the Soviets and Americans to reduce the amount of microwave radiation to which the the embassy was exposed. Coverage of this event brought American concerns about microwave radiation to the forefront for the first time, spawning myriad articles and discussions at the time about a lack of research regarding its safety. The notion that a Russian ban on microwaves would go unreported in major United States newspapers during a time that the Soviets were downplaying the risk of their own intentionally beamed microwave radiation is unlikely, given the perceived hypocrisy it would have engendered. Further, there were in fact a number of different microwaves available in the USSR during this supposed ban. Though they were unaffordable to the average Russian at the time — the first Soviet manufactured microwaves hit the scene in the 1970s. According to an article in the 16 August 2016 issue of Russia’s version of Popular Mechanics about this very myth, at least twenty-three different models were manufactured during this time period. This one, from 1981 (smack dab in the time period of the purported ban), is described by that article’s author as “famous”:  The origin of this myth, however, lies over 5000 miles away from Moscow in America’s Pacific Northwest — Portland, Oregon. Every claim made regarding a Russian ban on microwaves stems from an article published in the first (and as far as we can tell, the only) issue of a mysterious publication called the “Journal of Natural Science.” While the article from the “April-June 1998 issue” lists myriad claims about the dangers of microwave radiation, it is published without a single citation. That article also incorrectly asserts that the Nazis invented the microwave oven, and both the Soviets and Americans got their hands on the details after the war for further research: These documents and the experimental microwave equipment was transferred to the U.S. War Department, and classified for reference and scientific investigation. The Soviet Union also retrieved some of the devices, and proceeded to undertake experimentation on a separate basis. The Russians have been the most diligent in their research on the biological effects of microwave ovens, and have outlawed their use, and have also issued an international warning concerning the possible biological and environmental damage that can be caused by the use of this similar-frequency electronic apparatus. The author of this article is listed as “William P. Kopp,” whose biography is included at the end of the article: The original of this forensic research document is to be found in the Archives of the Atlantis Rising Educational Center in Portland, Oregon. The author William Kopp worked there from 1977 to 1979. Already twenty years ago Kopp gathered all documents known so far concerning the scientific proofs about microwaves’ harmful effects on humans. By doing this he got in the way of a powerful lobby and was forced later on to even change his name and to disappear. While it is hard to verify the authenticity of an unsourced document written by someone who claims to have changed his name to disappear from the dangerous microwave lobby, it is possible to ascertain what (at least in the late 1970s) the “Atlantis Rising Educational Center” was all about. Based on a classified ad placed in a January 1979 issue of the magazine Yoga Journal, it appears that this center was an alternative health bookstore selling herbal supplements:  The allegation of a Soviet ban on microwave ovens may well have stayed within the walls of the Atlantis Rising Educational Center if not for the misleading promotion of this remarkably questionable document. Perhaps most notably, the claim was repeated by the natural health evangelist Joseph Mercola who parroted the claim almost word for word on his web site, citing this Atlantis Rising “study”: The Nazis are credited with inventing the first microwave-cooking device to provide mobile food support to their troops during their invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II. These first microwave ovens were experimental. After the war, the US War Department was assigned the task of researching the safety of microwave ovens. But it was the Russians who really took the bull by the horns. After the war, the Russians had retrieved some of these microwave ovens and conducted thorough research on their biological effects. Alarmed by what they learned, the Russians banned microwave ovens in 1976, later lifting the ban during Perestroika. Claim: Microwave ovens were banned in the USSR in 1976 to protect its citizens from harmful health effects.

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "It’s clear that Scott Walker’s views on abortion will get intensified scrutiny now that he has joined the crowded Republican presidential field. In 2014, during the final weeks of the campaign before he won re-election as governor, Walker was attacked in a TV ad by a national political action committee that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. And weeks before his White House run announcement on July 13, 2015, Walker was targeted twice: once in a TV ad by the nation’s oldest abortion rights advocacy group and once on a TV talk show by U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, used her June 3, 2015 interview on MSNBC to cast Walker as out of step with other Republicans on abortion. After host Chris Hayes suggested that Walker’s support for a law banning abortion after 20 weeks was mainstream among Republicans, Baldwin agreed. But she drew a contrast, stating: ""Yes, but if you look at the history of those who have been elected president, Scott Walker's views are clearly more extreme than any Republican president in recent times -- much more extreme than President George W. Bush with regard to the issues of having exemptions that deal with the health and the life of the mother, and the issues of exemptions for rape victims and incest."" On abortion, is Walker to the right of any recent Republican president? Previous claims Some statements about Walker and abortion have missed the mark, including the two we mentioned. The TV ad by EMILY’s List shortly before Walker defeated Democrat Mary Burke in 2014 claimed Walker was ""forcing some women to undergo a transvaginal probe to get an abortion."". A law Walker signed says women can choose either a transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound, though in certain cases a transvaginal probe may be medically necessary. The TV ad by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which aired in June 2015 in Iowa and New Hampshire, claimed Walker had said that ""forcing women facing abortion to get invasive ultrasounds was 'just a cool thing.’ "" The ""cool"" reference wasn’t to forcing some women to get vaginal ultrasounds, but rather to the ultrasound technology that produces images from the womb. Nevertheless, there is no question that for decades -- going back to before his time as governor and as a state lawmaker -- Walker has been staunchly anti-abortion. Baldwin’s office didn’t respond to our requests for information to back her claim, and Walker’s campaign didn’t weigh in, either. But we can compare Walker’s public positions on abortion to those of recent GOP presidents. NARAL, Planned Parenthood We asked NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America about how they rate politicians on abortion rights. The groups told us they don’t produce ratings on a continuum. They put politicians into broad categories -- not on a scale that would rank one as more extreme, to use Baldwin’s term, than another. NARAL gave Walker and 13 other Republican presidential contenders a grade of F, for Fail. The group points to Walker’s votes in the Legislature and measures he has signed into law as governor restricting access to abortion services. Planned Parenthood rates the Republican and Democratic 2016 contenders more broadly, on access to abortion, affordable birth control and family planning. Like most of the other GOP hopefuls, Walker was given a red X on each measure, rather than a green checkmark. Planned Parenthood notes that besides wanting to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, Walker tried to repeal a law requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and defunded Planned Parenthood, which is something Walker himself highlights in his campaign speeches. The website of the National Right to Life Committee, meanwhile, highlights the records of President Barack Obama and his four most recent predecessors, dating back to the late Ronald Reagan, but doesn’t do any ratings. So let’s look more closely at Walker and the three most recent GOP presidents, dating back to Reagan. Walker vs. Bushes, Reagan Walker’s basic position is clear. In 2010, a week before he was elected to his first term as governor, we rated a claim that Walker wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. He acknowledged that was his position. As Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin told us, since then, Walker has not contradicted that position in words or actions. In fact, Walker has underscored his support for banning abortion without exceptions commonly accepted by other abortion opponents. In March 2015, Walker released an ""open letter on life,"" which began by noting that he had ""earned a 100 percent rating with pro-life groups in Wisconsin."" And in June 2015, Walker pledged to sign legislation to ban abortions in Wisconsin after 20 weeks -- with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. That measure was passed by the Legislature the next month and is awaiting Walker’s signature. No recent Republican president has gone so far in opposing exceptions. As president, George H.W. Bush (1989-’93) and George W. Bush (2001-’09) both supported allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The elder Bush said in 1992 he said: ""My own position on abortion is well-known and remains unchanged. I oppose abortion in all cases except rape or incest or where the life of the mother is at stake."" The younger Bush declared in 2006: ''My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."" Meanwhile, Reagan (1981-’89), an idol of Walker’s, was closer to Walker’s position. He didn’t support an exception for rape or incest, but did support one to protect the life of the mother. In 1987, he promoted a bill with a provision that ""no funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."" Our rating Baldwin said Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive ""than any Republican president in recent times."" Walker supports outlawing abortion in all circumstances. The three most recent GOP presidents each supported exceptions, such as allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother." Claim: "Tammy Baldwin Says Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive ""than any Republican president in recent times."

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The march of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, across a swath of Iraq has fractured a nation and spurred Republican attacks that the Obama administration is on the verge of ""snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."" Fox News host Jeanine Pirro tied President Barack Obama to the roots of the current assault. On June 14, Pirro offered listeners this insight into the ISIS leader. (ISIS is also called ISIL, for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.) ""The head of this band of savages is a man named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden,"" Pirro said. ""A man released by Obama in 2009, who started ISIS a year later. And when Baghdadi left Camp Bucca, where the worst of the worst were held in Iraq, he threatened his American jailers saying, ‘I’ll see you in New York.’ "" A reader wanted to know if Obama actually released Baghdadi, and we decided to look into it. Whatever the truth, the assertion has gained traction. For the president’s critics this fits with their disdain for the recent prisoner swap that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban leaders who had been kept at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Red State, a conservative blog, used the Baghdadi connection to talk about Obama’s ""catch-and-release"" policy. We have two elements to verify. Was Baghdadi in U.S. custody in 2009 and did Obama have a direct connection to his release? We’ll deal with them in order. Will the real Abu Bakr al Baghdadi please stand up There have been several articles -- from Slate, and NBC among others --  that place Baghdadi at a detention facility in Iraq called Camp Bucca in 2009 (when Obama would have been president). However, all the talk tracks back to a Daily Beast interview with Army Col. Kenneth King, the former commander of Camp Bucca. That article said King knew Baghdadi at the camp and that he didn’t expect to see him become the leader of a spectacularly vicious and brutal movement. ""I’m not surprised that it was someone who spent time in Bucca but I’m a little surprised it was him,"" King said. ""He was a bad dude, but he wasn’t the worst of the worst."" In this storyline, Baghdadi was handed over to Iraqi justice system late in 2009 shortly before Camp Bucca closed. However, when PunditFact asked the Defense Department to confirm the story, officials there said Baghdadi was released in 2004, not 2009. ""Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Al Badry, also known as ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’ was held as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released,"" the Pentagon said in a statement. ""He was held at Camp Bucca. A Combined Review and Release Board recommended ‘unconditional release’ of this detainee and he was released from U.S. custody shortly thereafter. We have no record of him being held at any other time."" In short, according to the Defense Department, the man who heads ISIS was released in 2004, long before Obama took office, and was not recaptured. ABC News also has questioned King’s recollection, citing a ""a U.S. official"" that Baghdadi was not in American custody in 2009. ""I could be mistaken,"" King told ABC News, ""but I’m 99 percent. He’s a dead ringer for the guy I had the run-in with … His face is very familiar."" King declined to comment to PunditFact. A troubled detention policy If Baghdadi wasn’t in American custody in 2009 as Defense Department officials say, then there’s no way Obama could be to blame. But even if he was, the link between the ISIS leader and the American president are flimsy because the framework was set in in 2008 while George W. Bush was president. A little backstory. By July 2005, the United States had four detention facilities -- two near Baghdad, one in the northeastern corner of the country, and Camp Bucca in the far southeastern corner near the Kuwait border. The entire operation was known as Task Force 134. In the course of the war, some 80,000 people passed through these centers, according to the Defense Department. A Pentagon-commissioned study by RAND, a private policy analysis group, described a system that struggled with competing expectations. The incoming population was a mix of captured Sunni and Shiite militants, people rounded up in military raids and ordinary criminals. At times, a blend of overcrowding and sectarian animosities led to riots. The RAND study also said the 2007 ""surge"" -- the addition of 20,000 new troops into Iraq to quell spreading unrest -- pushed detainee levels to over 25,000 people. From 2007-08, Navy Captain Brian J. Bill served as the legal adviser to Detainee Operations for the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Bill described the process of vetting inmates in the U.S. Naval War College journal, International Law Studies. The military established nine review boards, working six days a week, to hear 20 cases each day. Bill reported that when the boards first began they released about 25 percent of the individuals who came before them. Later, that rose to 40 percent. The end of the detention policy At the end Bush’s second term in 2008, American and Iraqi negotiators moved toward getting the United States out of the business of holding large numbers of Iraqis. Robert Chesney, professor of international security law at the University of Texas School of Law, said neither side wanted to see the network of detention centers continue. ""Its demise reflected a deliberate policy choice by the United States and Iraq to phase out that system and to rely instead on the Iraqi criminal justice system as the sole mechanism for detention going forward,"" Chesney wrote in 2011. That goal became part of the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, signed in November 2008. Under that agreement the United States agreed to ""turn over custody of such wanted detainees to Iraqi authorities pursuant to a valid Iraqi arrest warrant and shall release all the remaining detainees in a safe and orderly manner."" The United States continued to hold about 200 prisoners judged to pose the greatest risk. They were what remained from a group that numbered about 14,000 at the start of 2009. ""Aside from the so-called ‘Deck of Cards’ detainees held at Camp Cropper (the top leaders in Saddam Hussein’s government), it’s hard to imagine how anyone in Washington would have any interest in who we held or released,"" Bill told PunditFact. ""By the end of 2009, it’s hard to imagine how we could have continued to hold anyone if the Iraqis themselves didn’t decide to detain them."" Our ruling Pirro said that Obama released the current head of ISIS from government custody in 2009. The Defense Department said that the man now known as Baghdadi was released in 2004. The evidence that Baghdadi was still in custody in 2009 appears to be the recollection of an Army colonel who said Baghdadi’s ""face is very familiar."" Even if the colonel is right, Baghdadi was not set free; he was handed over to the Iraqis who released him some time later. But more important, the legal contract between the United States and Iraq that guaranteed that the United States would give up custody of virtually every detainee was signed during the Bush administration. It would have required an extraordinary effort to have held on to Baghdadi and there is no evidence that he was on anyone’s radar screen, assuming that he was in custody at all in 2009. The U.S.-Iraq agreement drove the release of thousands of detainees in 2009, but Obama had nothing to do with that." Claim: "ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi was ""released by Obama in 2009."

Ex Output:

0