Input: Among the early blows struck for independence was a rebellion in the town of Olhao. On 16 June 1808, the townsfolkarmed with little more than ancient swords, spears, and stonesattacked and captured the local French garrison. It's said that a party of local men then set sail from Olhao all the way to Brazil, without maps or navigational aids, to tell the king of the insurrection. The real battle, however, was waged under the leadership of the Duke of Wellington, whose coalition forces expelled the French after two years of bitter fighting. The war left Portugal further weakened, and in 1822 its major empire outpost, Brazil, declared independence. At the same time, a dispute over the crown continually raged between Pedro IV, the absentee monarch who preferred to reign as Emperor of Brazil rather than return to Portugal, and his brother Miguel. The power struggle, with strong overtones of absolutism versus liberalism, excited the interest and intervention of other powers. With British help, Pedro defeated Miguel off Cape St. Vincent in 1833, and his expeditionary force marched to Lisbon. Pedro took the throne, though armed struggle continued for months and the lingering bitterness long after that. By 1892 Portugal, racked by wars and the continuing expense of maintaining its African colonies (including those of Mozambique and Angola), declared itself bankrupt. The seeds of discontent with absolutist rule were sown. Kingdom's End Bloodshed would haunt the remaining years of the Portuguese monarchy. On 1 February 1908, the royal family was riding in an open carriage along the Lisbon river front plaza, Terreiro do Paco, when an assassin opened fire and killed King Carlos and the heir to the throne, Prince Luis Filipe. The prince's younger brother, Prince Manuel, was also hit, but he survived and was thus propelled to the throne at the tender age of 19. Amid republican agitation, a surprise uprising led by elements within the armed forces deposed Manuel in 1910. Having ruled for less than three years, Manuel died in exile in 1932 in England. The sudden end of more than seven centuries of monarchy brought confusion and crisis to the country. Presidents and prime ministers were ushered into and out of office an unbelievable 45 times between 1910 and 1926, until a military revolution suspended Portugal's problematic democracy.

Does the response "1833" correctly answer the question "There were many disputes going on, when did the first dispute happened?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

Have you ever looked closely at a globe? That continents look like a giant jig-saw puzzle. North America looks like it could fit next to Europe. The edge of South America matches Africa. Scientists noticed these same features. It caused them to start asking questions. They wanted to know if these continents were was connected? If so, how can something so large move so far? What could possibly have enough force to move such a giant slab of rock? Is there other evidence that can provide clues to the past positions of continents? How can answering these questions help us? A scientist named Alfred Wegener had these same questions. Wegener look at rocks on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. He noticed they were the same type and age. He thought that the rocks must have formed side by side. He proposed that the rocks then drifted apart. One part went with North America. The other part stayed with Europe.

Question: "Who thought that the rocks must have formed side by side"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Europe"

Response: no

You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective. Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?" Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.

Question: "Which standard filmmaking technique is used as a basis to construct conspiracies?"

Response: "Film splicing"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A:
no