gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
David Attenborough

Context: After leaving the Navy, Attenborough took a position editing children's science textbooks for a publishing company. He soon became disillusioned with the work and in 1950 applied for a job as a radio talk producer with the BBC. Although he was rejected for this job, his CV later attracted the interest of Mary Adams, head of the Talks (factual broadcasting) department of the BBC's fledgling television service.  Attenborough, like most Britons at that time, did not own a television, and he had seen only one programme in his life. However, he accepted Adams' offer of a three-month training course, and in 1952 he joined the BBC full-time. Initially discouraged from appearing on camera because Adams thought his teeth were too big, he became a producer for the Talks department, which handled all non-fiction broadcasts. His early projects included the quiz show Animal, Vegetable, Mineral? and Song Hunter, a series about folk music presented by Alan Lomax.  Attenborough's association with natural history programmes began when he produced and presented the three-part series Animal Patterns. The studio-bound programme featured animals from London Zoo, with the naturalist Julian Huxley discussing their use of camouflage, aposematism and courtship displays. Through this programme, Attenborough met Jack Lester, the curator of the zoo's reptile house, and they decided to make a series about an animal-collecting expedition. The result was Zoo Quest, first broadcast in 1954, where Attenborough became the presenter at short notice due to Lester being taken ill.  In 1957, the BBC Natural History Unit was formally established in Bristol. Attenborough was asked to join it, but declined, not wishing to move from London where he and his young family were settled. Instead, he formed his own department, the Travel and Exploration Unit, which allowed him to continue to front Zoo Quest as well as produce other documentaries, notably the Travellers' Tales and Adventure series.  In the early 1960s, Attenborough resigned from the permanent staff of the BBC to study for a postgraduate degree in social anthropology at the London School of Economics, interweaving his study with further filming. However, he accepted an invitation to return to the BBC as controller of BBC Two before he could finish the degree. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did David Attenborough ever work with the BBC again?
Answer: he accepted an invitation to return to the BBC as controller of BBC Two before he could finish the degree.
Tlingit language

Context: Tlingit has a complex system of pronominals, which vary depending on their relationship to the verb. The subject pronominals are incorporated into the verb in its subject slot. The object pronominals are also technically incorporated into the verb (i.e. the verb "complex"), but most are graphically independent. They are divided into three classes, the verbal object, nominal object, and postpositional object. There are also the independent pronominals which are completely separate from the verb and can be used in dependent clauses or in subject or object position.  The pronominals all have related semantic values, and their organization can hence easily be visualized in a table.  The numbers in the first column represent the usual concept of person, i.e. first, second, or third. Story and Naish identified a fourth person, but this term is inappropriate since they did not describe a clear separation between the so-called fourth person and the other impersonal pronominals.  When analyzing a sentence, the pronominal type is given first, then the form (subject, object, independent) is given following a period. This uniquely represents the pronominal as a two dimensional unit. Thus 1SINGULAR SUBJECT is the first person singular subject pronominal, realized as xhat. The RECIPROCAL does not uniquely identify one of the two reciprocal pronominals, but since they are both phonetically identical as woosh, it is generally unnecessary to uniquely identify them.  There is also a notional zeroth person which can be of subject, object, or independent form. This is not realized in Tlingit, instead it is an empty placeholder for analysis. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What are pronomials in the Tlingit language?
Answer: The subject pronominals are incorporated into the verb in its subject slot.
Tlingit language

Context: Tlingit has a complex system of pronominals, which vary depending on their relationship to the verb. The subject pronominals are incorporated into the verb in its subject slot. The object pronominals are also technically incorporated into the verb (i.e. the verb "complex"), but most are graphically independent. They are divided into three classes, the verbal object, nominal object, and postpositional object. There are also the independent pronominals which are completely separate from the verb and can be used in dependent clauses or in subject or object position.  The pronominals all have related semantic values, and their organization can hence easily be visualized in a table.  The numbers in the first column represent the usual concept of person, i.e. first, second, or third. Story and Naish identified a fourth person, but this term is inappropriate since they did not describe a clear separation between the so-called fourth person and the other impersonal pronominals.  When analyzing a sentence, the pronominal type is given first, then the form (subject, object, independent) is given following a period. This uniquely represents the pronominal as a two dimensional unit. Thus 1SINGULAR SUBJECT is the first person singular subject pronominal, realized as xhat. The RECIPROCAL does not uniquely identify one of the two reciprocal pronominals, but since they are both phonetically identical as woosh, it is generally unnecessary to uniquely identify them.  There is also a notional zeroth person which can be of subject, object, or independent form. This is not realized in Tlingit, instead it is an empty placeholder for analysis. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Are the verbs the same in the English language as in the Tlingit language?
Answer: The object pronominals are also technically incorporated into the verb (i.e. the verb "complex"), but most are graphically independent.
Tlingit language

Context: Tlingit has a complex system of pronominals, which vary depending on their relationship to the verb. The subject pronominals are incorporated into the verb in its subject slot. The object pronominals are also technically incorporated into the verb (i.e. the verb "complex"), but most are graphically independent. They are divided into three classes, the verbal object, nominal object, and postpositional object. There are also the independent pronominals which are completely separate from the verb and can be used in dependent clauses or in subject or object position.  The pronominals all have related semantic values, and their organization can hence easily be visualized in a table.  The numbers in the first column represent the usual concept of person, i.e. first, second, or third. Story and Naish identified a fourth person, but this term is inappropriate since they did not describe a clear separation between the so-called fourth person and the other impersonal pronominals.  When analyzing a sentence, the pronominal type is given first, then the form (subject, object, independent) is given following a period. This uniquely represents the pronominal as a two dimensional unit. Thus 1SINGULAR SUBJECT is the first person singular subject pronominal, realized as xhat. The RECIPROCAL does not uniquely identify one of the two reciprocal pronominals, but since they are both phonetically identical as woosh, it is generally unnecessary to uniquely identify them.  There is also a notional zeroth person which can be of subject, object, or independent form. This is not realized in Tlingit, instead it is an empty placeholder for analysis. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What area of the word teaches the pronominals in Tlingit?
Answer: When analyzing a sentence, the pronominal type is given first, then the form (subject, object, independent) is given following a period.
Tlingit language

Context: Tlingit has a complex system of pronominals, which vary depending on their relationship to the verb. The subject pronominals are incorporated into the verb in its subject slot. The object pronominals are also technically incorporated into the verb (i.e. the verb "complex"), but most are graphically independent. They are divided into three classes, the verbal object, nominal object, and postpositional object. There are also the independent pronominals which are completely separate from the verb and can be used in dependent clauses or in subject or object position.  The pronominals all have related semantic values, and their organization can hence easily be visualized in a table.  The numbers in the first column represent the usual concept of person, i.e. first, second, or third. Story and Naish identified a fourth person, but this term is inappropriate since they did not describe a clear separation between the so-called fourth person and the other impersonal pronominals.  When analyzing a sentence, the pronominal type is given first, then the form (subject, object, independent) is given following a period. This uniquely represents the pronominal as a two dimensional unit. Thus 1SINGULAR SUBJECT is the first person singular subject pronominal, realized as xhat. The RECIPROCAL does not uniquely identify one of the two reciprocal pronominals, but since they are both phonetically identical as woosh, it is generally unnecessary to uniquely identify them.  There is also a notional zeroth person which can be of subject, object, or independent form. This is not realized in Tlingit, instead it is an empty placeholder for analysis. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Is there any other important information about Tlingit besides pronominals?
Answer: When analyzing a sentence, the pronominal type is given first, then the form (subject, object, independent) is given following a period.
Lionel Barrymore

Context: Several sources argue that arthritis alone confined Barrymore to a wheelchair. Film historian Jeanine Basinger says that his arthritis was serious by at least 1928, when Barrymore made Sadie Thompson. Film historian David Wallace says it was well known that Barrymore was addicted to morphine due to arthritis by 1929. A history of Oscar-winning actors, however, says Barrymore was only suffering from arthritis, not crippled by it. Marie Dressler biographer Matthew Kennedy notes that when Barrymore won his Best Actor Oscar award in 1930, the arthritis was still so minor that it only made him limp a little as he went on stage to accept the honor. Barrymore can be seen being quite physical in late silent films like The Thirteenth Hour and West of Zanzibar, where he can be seen climbing out of a window.  Paul Donnelly says Barrymore's inability to walk was caused by a drawing table falling on him in 1936, breaking Barrymore's hip. Barrymore tripped over a cable while filming Saratoga in 1937 and broke his hip again. (Film historian Robert Osborne says Barrymore also suffered a broken kneecap.) The injury was painful enough that Donnelly, quoting Barrymore, says that Louis B. Mayer bought Barrymore $400 worth of cocaine every day to help him cope with the pain and allow him to sleep. Author David Schwartz says the hip fracture never healed, which was why Barrymore could not walk, while MGM historian John Douglas Eames claims that the injury was "crippling". Barrymore himself said in 1951, that it was breaking his hip twice that kept him in the wheelchair. He said he had no other problems, and that the hip healed well, but it made walking exceptionally difficult. Film historian Allen Eyles reached the same conclusion.  Lew Ayres biographer Lesley Coffin and Louis B. Mayer biographer Scott Eyman argue that it was the combination of the broken hip and Barrymore's worsening arthritis that put him in a wheelchair. Barrymore family biographer Margot Peters says Gene Fowler and James Doane said Barrymore's arthritis was caused by syphilis, which they say he contracted in 1925. Eyman, however, explicitly rejects this hypothesis.  Whatever the cause, Barrymore's performance in Captains Courageous in 1937 was one of the last times he would be seen standing and walking unassisted. Afterward, Barrymore was able to get about for a short period of time on crutches even though he was in great pain. During the filming of 1938's You Can't Take It With You, the pain of standing with crutches was so severe that Barrymore required hourly shots of painkillers. By 1938, Barrymore used a wheelchair exclusively and never walked again. He could, however, stand for short periods of time such as at his brother's funeral in 1942. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Lionel Barrymore's main medical issue?
Answer: arthritis
Lionel Barrymore

Context: Several sources argue that arthritis alone confined Barrymore to a wheelchair. Film historian Jeanine Basinger says that his arthritis was serious by at least 1928, when Barrymore made Sadie Thompson. Film historian David Wallace says it was well known that Barrymore was addicted to morphine due to arthritis by 1929. A history of Oscar-winning actors, however, says Barrymore was only suffering from arthritis, not crippled by it. Marie Dressler biographer Matthew Kennedy notes that when Barrymore won his Best Actor Oscar award in 1930, the arthritis was still so minor that it only made him limp a little as he went on stage to accept the honor. Barrymore can be seen being quite physical in late silent films like The Thirteenth Hour and West of Zanzibar, where he can be seen climbing out of a window.  Paul Donnelly says Barrymore's inability to walk was caused by a drawing table falling on him in 1936, breaking Barrymore's hip. Barrymore tripped over a cable while filming Saratoga in 1937 and broke his hip again. (Film historian Robert Osborne says Barrymore also suffered a broken kneecap.) The injury was painful enough that Donnelly, quoting Barrymore, says that Louis B. Mayer bought Barrymore $400 worth of cocaine every day to help him cope with the pain and allow him to sleep. Author David Schwartz says the hip fracture never healed, which was why Barrymore could not walk, while MGM historian John Douglas Eames claims that the injury was "crippling". Barrymore himself said in 1951, that it was breaking his hip twice that kept him in the wheelchair. He said he had no other problems, and that the hip healed well, but it made walking exceptionally difficult. Film historian Allen Eyles reached the same conclusion.  Lew Ayres biographer Lesley Coffin and Louis B. Mayer biographer Scott Eyman argue that it was the combination of the broken hip and Barrymore's worsening arthritis that put him in a wheelchair. Barrymore family biographer Margot Peters says Gene Fowler and James Doane said Barrymore's arthritis was caused by syphilis, which they say he contracted in 1925. Eyman, however, explicitly rejects this hypothesis.  Whatever the cause, Barrymore's performance in Captains Courageous in 1937 was one of the last times he would be seen standing and walking unassisted. Afterward, Barrymore was able to get about for a short period of time on crutches even though he was in great pain. During the filming of 1938's You Can't Take It With You, the pain of standing with crutches was so severe that Barrymore required hourly shots of painkillers. By 1938, Barrymore used a wheelchair exclusively and never walked again. He could, however, stand for short periods of time such as at his brother's funeral in 1942. CANNOTANSWER

Question: How did arthritis affect Lionel Barrymore?
Answer: confined Barrymore to a wheelchair.
Lionel Barrymore

Context: Several sources argue that arthritis alone confined Barrymore to a wheelchair. Film historian Jeanine Basinger says that his arthritis was serious by at least 1928, when Barrymore made Sadie Thompson. Film historian David Wallace says it was well known that Barrymore was addicted to morphine due to arthritis by 1929. A history of Oscar-winning actors, however, says Barrymore was only suffering from arthritis, not crippled by it. Marie Dressler biographer Matthew Kennedy notes that when Barrymore won his Best Actor Oscar award in 1930, the arthritis was still so minor that it only made him limp a little as he went on stage to accept the honor. Barrymore can be seen being quite physical in late silent films like The Thirteenth Hour and West of Zanzibar, where he can be seen climbing out of a window.  Paul Donnelly says Barrymore's inability to walk was caused by a drawing table falling on him in 1936, breaking Barrymore's hip. Barrymore tripped over a cable while filming Saratoga in 1937 and broke his hip again. (Film historian Robert Osborne says Barrymore also suffered a broken kneecap.) The injury was painful enough that Donnelly, quoting Barrymore, says that Louis B. Mayer bought Barrymore $400 worth of cocaine every day to help him cope with the pain and allow him to sleep. Author David Schwartz says the hip fracture never healed, which was why Barrymore could not walk, while MGM historian John Douglas Eames claims that the injury was "crippling". Barrymore himself said in 1951, that it was breaking his hip twice that kept him in the wheelchair. He said he had no other problems, and that the hip healed well, but it made walking exceptionally difficult. Film historian Allen Eyles reached the same conclusion.  Lew Ayres biographer Lesley Coffin and Louis B. Mayer biographer Scott Eyman argue that it was the combination of the broken hip and Barrymore's worsening arthritis that put him in a wheelchair. Barrymore family biographer Margot Peters says Gene Fowler and James Doane said Barrymore's arthritis was caused by syphilis, which they say he contracted in 1925. Eyman, however, explicitly rejects this hypothesis.  Whatever the cause, Barrymore's performance in Captains Courageous in 1937 was one of the last times he would be seen standing and walking unassisted. Afterward, Barrymore was able to get about for a short period of time on crutches even though he was in great pain. During the filming of 1938's You Can't Take It With You, the pain of standing with crutches was so severe that Barrymore required hourly shots of painkillers. By 1938, Barrymore used a wheelchair exclusively and never walked again. He could, however, stand for short periods of time such as at his brother's funeral in 1942. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was Lionel Barrymore's arthritis always severe?
Answer: A history of Oscar-winning actors, however, says Barrymore was only suffering from arthritis, not crippled by it.
Lionel Barrymore

Context: Several sources argue that arthritis alone confined Barrymore to a wheelchair. Film historian Jeanine Basinger says that his arthritis was serious by at least 1928, when Barrymore made Sadie Thompson. Film historian David Wallace says it was well known that Barrymore was addicted to morphine due to arthritis by 1929. A history of Oscar-winning actors, however, says Barrymore was only suffering from arthritis, not crippled by it. Marie Dressler biographer Matthew Kennedy notes that when Barrymore won his Best Actor Oscar award in 1930, the arthritis was still so minor that it only made him limp a little as he went on stage to accept the honor. Barrymore can be seen being quite physical in late silent films like The Thirteenth Hour and West of Zanzibar, where he can be seen climbing out of a window.  Paul Donnelly says Barrymore's inability to walk was caused by a drawing table falling on him in 1936, breaking Barrymore's hip. Barrymore tripped over a cable while filming Saratoga in 1937 and broke his hip again. (Film historian Robert Osborne says Barrymore also suffered a broken kneecap.) The injury was painful enough that Donnelly, quoting Barrymore, says that Louis B. Mayer bought Barrymore $400 worth of cocaine every day to help him cope with the pain and allow him to sleep. Author David Schwartz says the hip fracture never healed, which was why Barrymore could not walk, while MGM historian John Douglas Eames claims that the injury was "crippling". Barrymore himself said in 1951, that it was breaking his hip twice that kept him in the wheelchair. He said he had no other problems, and that the hip healed well, but it made walking exceptionally difficult. Film historian Allen Eyles reached the same conclusion.  Lew Ayres biographer Lesley Coffin and Louis B. Mayer biographer Scott Eyman argue that it was the combination of the broken hip and Barrymore's worsening arthritis that put him in a wheelchair. Barrymore family biographer Margot Peters says Gene Fowler and James Doane said Barrymore's arthritis was caused by syphilis, which they say he contracted in 1925. Eyman, however, explicitly rejects this hypothesis.  Whatever the cause, Barrymore's performance in Captains Courageous in 1937 was one of the last times he would be seen standing and walking unassisted. Afterward, Barrymore was able to get about for a short period of time on crutches even though he was in great pain. During the filming of 1938's You Can't Take It With You, the pain of standing with crutches was so severe that Barrymore required hourly shots of painkillers. By 1938, Barrymore used a wheelchair exclusively and never walked again. He could, however, stand for short periods of time such as at his brother's funeral in 1942. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was Lionel Barrymore crippled by the pain of arthritis or limited movement?
Answer: Paul Donnelly says Barrymore's inability to walk was caused by a drawing table falling on him in 1936, breaking Barrymore's hip.
Gennady Golovkin

Context: After ending his amateur career in 2005, Golovkin signed a professional deal with the Universum Box-Promotion (UBP) and made his professional debut in May 2006. By the end of 2008, Golovkin's record stood at 14-0 (11 KO) and while he had few wins over boxers regarded as legitimate contenders, he was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world. Golovkin was given 4 more relatively easy bouts in 2009. In 2010, Universum started to run into financial issues after having been dropped by German television channel ZDF. This caused a number of issues for Golovkin who was effectively unable to fight in Germany, and contract disputes between the two parties got complicated.  Golovkin terminated his contract with Universum in January 2010 and stated the following in an interview: "The reason for this decision is that I've always been placed behind Felix Sturm and Sebastian Zbik by Universum. Our demands to fight against Felix Sturm or Sebastian Zbik have been always rejected on absurd grounds. Universum had no real plan or concept for me, they did not even try to bring my career forward. They would rather try to prevent me from winning a title as long as Sturm and Zbik are champions. Further more, bouts against well-known and interesting opponents were held out in prospect, but nothing happened. This situation was not acceptable. It was time to move forward."  After cutting ties with Universum, the WBA issued an interim title fight between Golovkin, ranked #1 at the time, and Milton Nunez. Golovkin routed Nunez, defeating him in 58 seconds to become a world champion. Golovkin was promptly upgraded to WBA (Regular) champion. He tried to fight WBA (Super) champion Felix Sturm and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam during this time, but was unable to get them in the ring. Oleg Hermann, Golovkin's manager, said "It is very hard to find a good opponent. Everybody knows that Felix Sturm is afraid of Gennady. Strictly speaking, Sturm should get out of boxing and become a marathon runner because he is running fast and long. He has an excellent chance to become a champion in athletics." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Gennady Golovkin first job?
Answer: Golovkin signed a professional deal with the Universum Box-Promotion (UBP) and made his professional debut
Gennady Golovkin

Context: After ending his amateur career in 2005, Golovkin signed a professional deal with the Universum Box-Promotion (UBP) and made his professional debut in May 2006. By the end of 2008, Golovkin's record stood at 14-0 (11 KO) and while he had few wins over boxers regarded as legitimate contenders, he was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world. Golovkin was given 4 more relatively easy bouts in 2009. In 2010, Universum started to run into financial issues after having been dropped by German television channel ZDF. This caused a number of issues for Golovkin who was effectively unable to fight in Germany, and contract disputes between the two parties got complicated.  Golovkin terminated his contract with Universum in January 2010 and stated the following in an interview: "The reason for this decision is that I've always been placed behind Felix Sturm and Sebastian Zbik by Universum. Our demands to fight against Felix Sturm or Sebastian Zbik have been always rejected on absurd grounds. Universum had no real plan or concept for me, they did not even try to bring my career forward. They would rather try to prevent me from winning a title as long as Sturm and Zbik are champions. Further more, bouts against well-known and interesting opponents were held out in prospect, but nothing happened. This situation was not acceptable. It was time to move forward."  After cutting ties with Universum, the WBA issued an interim title fight between Golovkin, ranked #1 at the time, and Milton Nunez. Golovkin routed Nunez, defeating him in 58 seconds to become a world champion. Golovkin was promptly upgraded to WBA (Regular) champion. He tried to fight WBA (Super) champion Felix Sturm and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam during this time, but was unable to get them in the ring. Oleg Hermann, Golovkin's manager, said "It is very hard to find a good opponent. Everybody knows that Felix Sturm is afraid of Gennady. Strictly speaking, Sturm should get out of boxing and become a marathon runner because he is running fast and long. He has an excellent chance to become a champion in athletics." CANNOTANSWER

Question: When did Universum Box Promotion sign Gennady Golovkin?
Answer: May 2006.
Gennady Golovkin

Context: After ending his amateur career in 2005, Golovkin signed a professional deal with the Universum Box-Promotion (UBP) and made his professional debut in May 2006. By the end of 2008, Golovkin's record stood at 14-0 (11 KO) and while he had few wins over boxers regarded as legitimate contenders, he was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world. Golovkin was given 4 more relatively easy bouts in 2009. In 2010, Universum started to run into financial issues after having been dropped by German television channel ZDF. This caused a number of issues for Golovkin who was effectively unable to fight in Germany, and contract disputes between the two parties got complicated.  Golovkin terminated his contract with Universum in January 2010 and stated the following in an interview: "The reason for this decision is that I've always been placed behind Felix Sturm and Sebastian Zbik by Universum. Our demands to fight against Felix Sturm or Sebastian Zbik have been always rejected on absurd grounds. Universum had no real plan or concept for me, they did not even try to bring my career forward. They would rather try to prevent me from winning a title as long as Sturm and Zbik are champions. Further more, bouts against well-known and interesting opponents were held out in prospect, but nothing happened. This situation was not acceptable. It was time to move forward."  After cutting ties with Universum, the WBA issued an interim title fight between Golovkin, ranked #1 at the time, and Milton Nunez. Golovkin routed Nunez, defeating him in 58 seconds to become a world champion. Golovkin was promptly upgraded to WBA (Regular) champion. He tried to fight WBA (Super) champion Felix Sturm and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam during this time, but was unable to get them in the ring. Oleg Hermann, Golovkin's manager, said "It is very hard to find a good opponent. Everybody knows that Felix Sturm is afraid of Gennady. Strictly speaking, Sturm should get out of boxing and become a marathon runner because he is running fast and long. He has an excellent chance to become a champion in athletics." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What happens after Gennady Golovkin is signed?
Answer: By the end of 2008, Golovkin's record stood at 14-0 (11 KO)
Gennady Golovkin

Context: After ending his amateur career in 2005, Golovkin signed a professional deal with the Universum Box-Promotion (UBP) and made his professional debut in May 2006. By the end of 2008, Golovkin's record stood at 14-0 (11 KO) and while he had few wins over boxers regarded as legitimate contenders, he was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world. Golovkin was given 4 more relatively easy bouts in 2009. In 2010, Universum started to run into financial issues after having been dropped by German television channel ZDF. This caused a number of issues for Golovkin who was effectively unable to fight in Germany, and contract disputes between the two parties got complicated.  Golovkin terminated his contract with Universum in January 2010 and stated the following in an interview: "The reason for this decision is that I've always been placed behind Felix Sturm and Sebastian Zbik by Universum. Our demands to fight against Felix Sturm or Sebastian Zbik have been always rejected on absurd grounds. Universum had no real plan or concept for me, they did not even try to bring my career forward. They would rather try to prevent me from winning a title as long as Sturm and Zbik are champions. Further more, bouts against well-known and interesting opponents were held out in prospect, but nothing happened. This situation was not acceptable. It was time to move forward."  After cutting ties with Universum, the WBA issued an interim title fight between Golovkin, ranked #1 at the time, and Milton Nunez. Golovkin routed Nunez, defeating him in 58 seconds to become a world champion. Golovkin was promptly upgraded to WBA (Regular) champion. He tried to fight WBA (Super) champion Felix Sturm and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam during this time, but was unable to get them in the ring. Oleg Hermann, Golovkin's manager, said "It is very hard to find a good opponent. Everybody knows that Felix Sturm is afraid of Gennady. Strictly speaking, Sturm should get out of boxing and become a marathon runner because he is running fast and long. He has an excellent chance to become a champion in athletics." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Gennady Golovkin have any notable losses?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Gennady Golovkin

Context: After ending his amateur career in 2005, Golovkin signed a professional deal with the Universum Box-Promotion (UBP) and made his professional debut in May 2006. By the end of 2008, Golovkin's record stood at 14-0 (11 KO) and while he had few wins over boxers regarded as legitimate contenders, he was regarded as one of the best prospects in the world. Golovkin was given 4 more relatively easy bouts in 2009. In 2010, Universum started to run into financial issues after having been dropped by German television channel ZDF. This caused a number of issues for Golovkin who was effectively unable to fight in Germany, and contract disputes between the two parties got complicated.  Golovkin terminated his contract with Universum in January 2010 and stated the following in an interview: "The reason for this decision is that I've always been placed behind Felix Sturm and Sebastian Zbik by Universum. Our demands to fight against Felix Sturm or Sebastian Zbik have been always rejected on absurd grounds. Universum had no real plan or concept for me, they did not even try to bring my career forward. They would rather try to prevent me from winning a title as long as Sturm and Zbik are champions. Further more, bouts against well-known and interesting opponents were held out in prospect, but nothing happened. This situation was not acceptable. It was time to move forward."  After cutting ties with Universum, the WBA issued an interim title fight between Golovkin, ranked #1 at the time, and Milton Nunez. Golovkin routed Nunez, defeating him in 58 seconds to become a world champion. Golovkin was promptly upgraded to WBA (Regular) champion. He tried to fight WBA (Super) champion Felix Sturm and Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam during this time, but was unable to get them in the ring. Oleg Hermann, Golovkin's manager, said "It is very hard to find a good opponent. Everybody knows that Felix Sturm is afraid of Gennady. Strictly speaking, Sturm should get out of boxing and become a marathon runner because he is running fast and long. He has an excellent chance to become a champion in athletics." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Gennady Golovkin have any notable win?
Answer: 58 seconds to become a world champion. Golovkin was promptly upgraded to WBA (Regular) champion.
Dinesh D'Souza

Context: In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014. America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms. The Washington Times states that D'Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but "we do have us" in "our struggle for the restoration of America."  Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an "A+" grade. The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.  The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike". The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir." The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media". Bond reported, "Conservatives... seem thrilled with the movie."  John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country, "D'Souza's film and his accompanying book are a no-holds-barred assault on the contemporary doctrine of political correctness." Fund said D'Souza's message was "deeply pessimistic" but concluded, "Most people will leave the theater with a more optimistic conclusion: Much of the criticism of America taught in the nation's schools is easily refuted, America is worth saving, and we have the tools to do so in our DNA, just waiting to be harnessed." National Review's Jay Nordlinger said, "Dinesh is the anti-Moore: taking to the big screen to press conservative points... The shame narrators (let's call them) focus on maybe 20 percent of the American story. Dinesh simply puts the other 80 percent back in." In a second article, Jay Nordlinger said, "The second movie confirms for me that one of Dinesh's great advantages is that he is absolutely clear-eyed about the Third World. While liberal Americans romanticize it, he has lived it." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What would the world be like without America?
Answer: In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014.
Dinesh D'Souza

Context: In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014. America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms. The Washington Times states that D'Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but "we do have us" in "our struggle for the restoration of America."  Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an "A+" grade. The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.  The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike". The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir." The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media". Bond reported, "Conservatives... seem thrilled with the movie."  John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country, "D'Souza's film and his accompanying book are a no-holds-barred assault on the contemporary doctrine of political correctness." Fund said D'Souza's message was "deeply pessimistic" but concluded, "Most people will leave the theater with a more optimistic conclusion: Much of the criticism of America taught in the nation's schools is easily refuted, America is worth saving, and we have the tools to do so in our DNA, just waiting to be harnessed." National Review's Jay Nordlinger said, "Dinesh is the anti-Moore: taking to the big screen to press conservative points... The shame narrators (let's call them) focus on maybe 20 percent of the American story. Dinesh simply puts the other 80 percent back in." In a second article, Jay Nordlinger said, "The second movie confirms for me that one of Dinesh's great advantages is that he is absolutely clear-eyed about the Third World. While liberal Americans romanticize it, he has lived it." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Does D'Souza's documentary film give any specific examples of what the world would be like without America?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Dinesh D'Souza

Context: In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014. America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms. The Washington Times states that D'Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but "we do have us" in "our struggle for the restoration of America."  Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an "A+" grade. The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.  The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike". The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir." The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media". Bond reported, "Conservatives... seem thrilled with the movie."  John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country, "D'Souza's film and his accompanying book are a no-holds-barred assault on the contemporary doctrine of political correctness." Fund said D'Souza's message was "deeply pessimistic" but concluded, "Most people will leave the theater with a more optimistic conclusion: Much of the criticism of America taught in the nation's schools is easily refuted, America is worth saving, and we have the tools to do so in our DNA, just waiting to be harnessed." National Review's Jay Nordlinger said, "Dinesh is the anti-Moore: taking to the big screen to press conservative points... The shame narrators (let's call them) focus on maybe 20 percent of the American story. Dinesh simply puts the other 80 percent back in." In a second article, Jay Nordlinger said, "The second movie confirms for me that one of Dinesh's great advantages is that he is absolutely clear-eyed about the Third World. While liberal Americans romanticize it, he has lived it." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who is Dinesh D'Souza?
Answer: D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014.
Dinesh D'Souza

Context: In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014. America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms. The Washington Times states that D'Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but "we do have us" in "our struggle for the restoration of America."  Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an "A+" grade. The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.  The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike". The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir." The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media". Bond reported, "Conservatives... seem thrilled with the movie."  John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country, "D'Souza's film and his accompanying book are a no-holds-barred assault on the contemporary doctrine of political correctness." Fund said D'Souza's message was "deeply pessimistic" but concluded, "Most people will leave the theater with a more optimistic conclusion: Much of the criticism of America taught in the nation's schools is easily refuted, America is worth saving, and we have the tools to do so in our DNA, just waiting to be harnessed." National Review's Jay Nordlinger said, "Dinesh is the anti-Moore: taking to the big screen to press conservative points... The shame narrators (let's call them) focus on maybe 20 percent of the American story. Dinesh simply puts the other 80 percent back in." In a second article, Jay Nordlinger said, "The second movie confirms for me that one of Dinesh's great advantages is that he is absolutely clear-eyed about the Third World. While liberal Americans romanticize it, he has lived it." CANNOTANSWER

Question: How well was Dinesh D'Souza's documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her received?
Answer: The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive.
Dinesh D'Souza

Context: In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014. America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms. The Washington Times states that D'Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but "we do have us" in "our struggle for the restoration of America."  Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an "A+" grade. The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.  The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike". The similar website Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir." The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media". Bond reported, "Conservatives... seem thrilled with the movie."  John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country, "D'Souza's film and his accompanying book are a no-holds-barred assault on the contemporary doctrine of political correctness." Fund said D'Souza's message was "deeply pessimistic" but concluded, "Most people will leave the theater with a more optimistic conclusion: Much of the criticism of America taught in the nation's schools is easily refuted, America is worth saving, and we have the tools to do so in our DNA, just waiting to be harnessed." National Review's Jay Nordlinger said, "Dinesh is the anti-Moore: taking to the big screen to press conservative points... The shame narrators (let's call them) focus on maybe 20 percent of the American story. Dinesh simply puts the other 80 percent back in." In a second article, Jay Nordlinger said, "The second movie confirms for me that one of Dinesh's great advantages is that he is absolutely clear-eyed about the Third World. While liberal Americans romanticize it, he has lived it." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was D'Souza's documentary America: Imagine the World Without Her about?
Answer: John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country,