romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, and although it is used for this purpose, as it has an international legal credibility that others lack, other definitions have also been postulated. Jonassohn and Björnson go on to say that none of these alternative definitions have gained widespread support for various reasons.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In 1998 it was written that the CPPCG was a legal entity resulting in which type of compromise?
A: a diplomatic compromise', '
Q: Rather than a definition, the text of the treaty is considered as what type of tool?
A: a research tool', '
Q: What does the treaty possess that others lack?
A: international legal credibility', '
Q: The writers Jonassohn and Bjornson cite various reasons for the lack of widespread support of what?
A: alternative definitions']
Jonassohn and Björnson postulate that the major reason why no single generally accepted genocide definition has emerged is because academics have adjusted their focus to emphasise different periods and have found it expedient to use slightly different definitions to help them interpret events. For example, Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn studied the whole of human history, while Leo Kuper and R. J. Rummel in their more recent works concentrated on the 20th century, and Helen Fein, Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr have looked at post World War II events. Jonassohn and Björnson are critical of some of these studies, arguing that they are too expansive, and conclude that the academic discipline of genocide studies is too young to have a canon of work on which to build an academic paradigm.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What two writers examined the lack of an accepted and singular definition for genocide?
A: Jonassohn and Björnson', '
Q: The two writers suggested that academics adjusted what in their different definitions to assist them in interpreting events? 
A: their focus', '
Q: What writer joined Jonassohn in the study of the whole of human history?
A: Frank Chalk', '
Q: With whom was Leo Kuper paired in research that focused on 20th century works?
A: R. J. Rummel', '
Q: Two women and what man concentrated on post World War II events?
A: Ted Gurr']
The exclusion of social and political groups as targets of genocide in the CPPCG legal definition has been criticized by some historians and sociologists, for example M. Hassan Kakar in his book The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979–1982 argues that the international definition of genocide is too restricted, and that it should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator and quotes Chalk and Jonassohn: "Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones states that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Some historians were critical of what exclusion in the definition of victims of genocide?
A: social and political groups', '
Q: In what book did Kakar contend that the international definition of genocide was too narrow?
A: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response', '
Q: Kakar argued that the definition should include any group defined by the perpetrator and which other group?
A: political groups', '
Q: In the writing of Chalk and Jonassohn, what is stated to be a form of one-sided mass killing?
A: Genocide', '
Q: In further elaborating on the definition, how did Chalk and Jonassohn phrase the intention of the perpetrator? 
A: intends to destroy a group']
Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr defined genocide as "the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group ...[when] the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality." Harff and Gurr also differentiate between genocides and politicides by the characteristics by which members of a group are identified by the state. In genocides, the victimized groups are defined primarily in terms of their communal characteristics, i.e., ethnicity, religion or nationality. In politicides the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of their hierarchical position or political opposition to the regime and dominant groups. Daniel D. Polsby and Don B. Kates, Jr. state that "... we follow Harff's distinction between genocides and 'pogroms,' which she describes as 'short-lived outbursts by mobs, which, although often condoned by authorities, rarely persist.' If the violence persists for long enough, however, Harff argues, the distinction between condonation and complicity collapses."

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Harff and Gurr's definition of genocide included the promotion and execution of what, by a state or its agents?
A: policies", '
Q: Harff and Gurr further defined what in terms of ethnicity, religion or nationality?
A: victimized groups', '
Q: What was important to Harff and Gurr to distinguish from genocides?
A: politicides', '
Q: Along with ethnicity and and religion, what other characteristic defined a member of a victimized group?
A: nationality', '
Q: What did Harff define as "short-lived outbursts by mobs...?"
A: pogroms']
According to R. J. Rummel, genocide has 3 different meanings. The ordinary meaning is murder by government of people due to their national, ethnic, racial, or religious group membership. The legal meaning of genocide refers to the international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This also includes non-killings that in the end eliminate the group, such as preventing births or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. A generalized meaning of genocide is similar to the ordinary meaning but also includes government killings of political opponents or otherwise intentional murder. It is to avoid confusion regarding what meaning is intended that Rummel created the term democide for the third meaning.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In the writings of Rummel, what is the first and ordinary meaning of genocide?
A: murder by government', '
Q: Rummel postulates that murder of people of government is due to national, ethnic, racial and which other membership?
A: religious group', '
Q: The legal meaning of genocide is contained in which international treaty?
A: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', '
Q: Included in the CPPCG is non-killings that ultimately achieve what end?
A: eliminate the group', '
Q: In the interpretation of non-killings, the CPPCG cites the forceful relocation of children along with what other factor?
A: preventing births']
Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'. The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide (dependent on relative group size).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In terms of failed states and non-state actors, the possession of weapons of mass destruction was an issue examined by which writer?
A: Adrian Gallagher', "
Q: In Gallagher's definition of genocide, a source of what is malicious in it implementation of the destruction of a group? 
A: collective power", "
Q: Gallagher's definition upholds the centrality of what?
A: intent", '
Q: The centrality of intent broadens what definition, beyond the 1948 one?
A: group identity', '
Q: In order for a genocide classification to happen, a major part of a group has to be what?
A: destroyed']
All signatories to the CPPCG are required to prevent and punish acts of genocide, both in peace and wartime, though some barriers make this enforcement difficult. In particular, some of the signatories—namely, Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and former Yugoslavia—signed with the proviso that no claim of genocide could be brought against them at the International Court of Justice without their consent. Despite official protests from other signatories (notably Cyprus and Norway) on the ethics and legal standing of these reservations, the immunity from prosecution they grant has been invoked from time to time, as when the United States refused to allow a charge of genocide brought against it by former Yugoslavia following the 1999 Kosovo War.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Signatories to the CPPC are required to prevent and punish what?
A: acts of genocide', '
Q: During which times can a perpetrator of genocide be charged?
A: both in peace and wartime', '
Q: In enforcing a charge of genocide, what loophole do many of the signatories possess?
A: no claim of genocide could be brought against them', '
Q: What major western power is exempt from charges or claims of genocide against itself?
A: the United States', '
Q: Along with Cyprus, what other major signatory official protested the the immunity of others from prosecution of genocide?
A: Norway']
Because the universal acceptance of international laws which in 1948 defined and forbade genocide with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), those criminals who were prosecuted after the war in international courts for taking part in the Holocaust were found guilty of crimes against humanity and other more specific crimes like murder. Nevertheless, the Holocaust is universally recognized to have been a genocide and the term, that had been coined the year before by Raphael Lemkin, appeared in the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders, Count 3, which stated that all the defendants had "conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups..."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In 1948 the worldwide acceptance of international laws that defined and forbade genocide was promulgated by which treaty?
A: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide', '
Q: Perpetrators who were tried after World War II were in general found guilty of crimes against what?
A: humanity', '
Q: An example of a more specific genocidal crime of which one could be accused was what?
A: crimes like murder', '
Q: After WWII criminals were largely prosecuted under CPPCG for their involvement in what massive genocidal effort?
A: the Holocaust', '
Q: Who is notable for coining the term "Holocaust?"
A: Raphael Lemkin']
On 12 July 2007, European Court of Human Rights when dismissing the appeal by Nikola Jorgić against his conviction for genocide by a German court (Jorgic v. Germany) noted that the German courts wider interpretation of genocide has since been rejected by international courts considering similar cases. The ECHR also noted that in the 21st century "Amongst scholars, the majority have taken the view that ethnic cleansing, in the way in which it was carried out by the Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to expel Muslims and Croats from their homes, did not constitute genocide. However, there are also a considerable number of scholars who have suggested that these acts did amount to genocide, and the ICTY has found in the Momcilo Krajisnik case that the actus reu, of genocide was met in Prijedor "With regard to the charge of genocide, the Chamber found that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide".

Questions and answers:
["
Q: Which court dismissed Nikola Jorgic's appeal against his conviction for genocide by a German court?
A: European Court of Human Rights", '
Q: In Jorgic v. Germany, what about the German courts was later rejected by international courts hearing similar cases?
A: wider interpretation of genocide', '
Q: The ECHR noted that among certain academics, what act carried out by the Serbs agains Bosnian Muslims and Croats did not constitute genocide?
A: ethnic cleansing', '
Q: The ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Serbs against Bosnia-Herzegovina was conducted with what ultimate goal in mind?
A: expel Muslims and Croats from their homes', "
Q: Conversely the scholars who did view the Serbs' acts as constituting genocide, were backed up by what Tribunal?
A: the ICTY"]
About 30 people have been indicted for participating in genocide or complicity in genocide during the early 1990s in Bosnia. To date, after several plea bargains and some convictions that were successfully challenged on appeal two men, Vujadin Popović and Ljubiša Beara, have been found guilty of committing genocide, Zdravko Tolimir has been found guilty of committing genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, and two others, Radislav Krstić and Drago Nikolić, have been found guilty of aiding and abetting genocide. Three others have been found guilty of participating in genocides in Bosnia by German courts, one of whom Nikola Jorgić lost an appeal against his conviction in the European Court of Human Rights. A further eight men, former members of the Bosnian Serb security forces were found guilty of genocide by the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (See List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In the 1990s, how many people were indicted for war crimes that were officially defined as genocide?
A: About 30', '
Q: Convicted perpetrators Popovic and Beara were found guilty of genocide despite what evasive action?
A: several plea bargains', '
Q: Tolimir was found guilty of both genocide and what other charge?
A: conspiracy to commit genocide', '
Q: Another charge beyond the act of genocide and for which Krstic and Nikolic were found guilty was what?
A: aiding and abetting genocide', "
Q: Three others were charged with participating in genocides in Bosnia by which country's courts?
A: German courts"]
Slobodan Milošević, as the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He died on 11 March 2006 during his trial where he was accused of genocide or complicity in genocide in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, so no verdict was returned. In 1995, the ICTY issued a warrant for the arrest of Bosnian Serbs Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić on several charges including genocide. On 21 July 2008, Karadžić was arrested in Belgrade, and he is currently in The Hague on trial accused of genocide among other crimes. Ratko Mladić was arrested on 26 May 2011 by Serbian special police in Lazarevo, Serbia. Karadzic was convicted of ten of the eleven charges laid against him and sentenced to 40 years in prison on March 24 2016.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: What event occurred in March 2006 that essentially ended Milosevic's trial?
A: He died", '
Q: Where was Karadzic when he was finally arrested?
A: Belgrade', '
Q: With Milosevic dead, who did the ICTY next charge with crimes of genocide in 1995?
A: Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić', '
Q: Had Milosevic not died, what charges might he have been convicted of?
A: genocide or complicity in genocide', '
Q: Which former president was by far the most senior politician to be accused of genocidal crimes by the ICTY?
A: Slobodan Milošević']
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is a court under the auspices of the United Nations for the prosecution of offenses committed in Rwanda during the genocide which occurred there during April 1994, commencing on 6 April. The ICTR was created on 8 November 1994 by the Security Council of the United Nations in order to judge those people responsible for the acts of genocide and other serious violations of the international law performed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandan citizens in nearby states, between 1 January and 31 December 1994.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What court was established under the aegis of the United Nations to prosecute genocidal crimes in Rwanda?
A: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)', '
Q: The prosecutorial efforts of the ICTR focused on genocidal acts that took place during which time period?
A: April 1994', '
Q: the ICTR was created in November 1995 by which branch of the UN?
A: the Security Council of the United Nations', '
Q: The ICTR was established for the purpose of convicting those responsible for acts of genocide and what other charges?
A: serious violations of the international law', '
Q: The charges of genocide brought up by the ICTR were against what group of people?
A: Rwandan citizens']
There has been much debate over categorizing the situation in Darfur as genocide. The ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since that time however, no other permanent member of the UN Security Council followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide." Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What has been widely debated as a possible act of genocide in Sudan?
A: situation in Darfur', '
Q: In 2003 what well known U.S. Secretary of State declared the situation in Darfur as an act of genocide?
A: Colin Powell', '
Q: In front of which committee did Powell testify?
A: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee', '
Q: What did UN Security Council Resolution 1564 authorize in 2004?
A: an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur', '
Q: Despite some concessions, what act did the Commission ultimately state that Sudan had not pursued?
A: genocidal policy']
In March 2005, the Security Council formally referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, taking into account the Commission report but without mentioning any specific crimes. Two permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and China, abstained from the vote on the referral resolution. As of his fourth report to the Security Council, the Prosecutor has found "reasonable grounds to believe that the individuals identified [in the UN Security Council Resolution 1593] have committed crimes against humanity and war crimes," but did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute for genocide.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: To whom did the Security Council officially refer the situation in Darfur?
A: Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court', '
Q: What was taken into account, without mentioning specific crimes?
A: the Commission report', '
Q: China and what other permanent member of the Security Council abstained from the vote on the referral resolution?
A: the United States', '
Q: In which number report to the Council did the Prosecutor concede that crimes had been committed but evidence for prosecution was insufficient?
A: his fourth report']
Other authors have focused on the structural conditions leading up to genocide and the psychological and social processes that create an evolution toward genocide. Ervin Staub showed that economic deterioration and political confusion and disorganization were starting points of increasing discrimination and violence in many instances of genocides and mass killing. They lead to scapegoating a group and ideologies that identified that group as an enemy. A history of devaluation of the group that becomes the victim, past violence against the group that becomes the perpetrator leading to psychological wounds, authoritarian cultures and political systems, and the passivity of internal and external witnesses (bystanders) all contribute to the probability that the violence develops into genocide. Intense conflict between groups that is unresolved, becomes intractable and violent can also lead to genocide. The conditions that lead to genocide provide guidance to early prevention, such as humanizing a devalued group, creating ideologies that embrace all groups, and activating bystander responses. There is substantial research to indicate how this can be done, but information is only slowly transformed into action.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In the build-up to genocide, what have other authors focused on?
A: structural conditions', '
Q: What processes are thought to create an evolution toward genocide?
A: psychological and social', '
Q: Who revealed the starting points of this evolution to be economic deterioration and political confusion?
A: Ervin Staub', '
Q: A history of what is just one factor that contributes to the probability of violence developing into genocide?
A: devaluation of the group', '
Q: What is one preventive effort in circumventing conditions that lead to genocide?
A: humanizing a devalued group']
The emergence of resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is a common phenomenon. Emergence of resistance often reflects evolutionary processes that take place during antibiotic therapy. The antibiotic treatment may select for bacterial strains with physiologically or genetically enhanced capacity to survive high doses of antibiotics. Under certain conditions, it may result in preferential growth of resistant bacteria, while growth of susceptible bacteria is inhibited by the drug. For example, antibacterial selection for strains having previously acquired antibacterial-resistance genes was demonstrated in 1943 by the Luria–Delbrück experiment. Antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin, which used to have a high efficacy against many bacterial species and strains, have become less effective, due to the increased resistance of many bacterial strains.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is a modern common occurence with antibiotics?
A: resistance of bacteria', '
Q: What is resistance to antibiotics a cause of?
A: evolution', '
Q: When was the Luria-Delbruck experiment?
A: 1943', '
Q: Which two antibiotics that have high efficacy are much less useful now?
A: penicillin and erythromycin', '
Q: What does emergence of resistance reflect?
A: evolutionary processes', '
Q: What is the purpose of antibiotic treatment?
A: survive high doses of antibiotics', '
Q: When was antibacterial-resistance demonstrated?
A: 1943', '
Q: Who made the demonstration in 1943?
A: Luria–Delbrück']