In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Q: Comment: Touche'!

A: Non-toxic
****
Q: Comment: Loser

A: Toxic
****
Q: Comment: Nobody said anything about 'ignoring,' genius. Again, let's go back to COMPREHENSION - sticking to the words that were written. His point, which was clearly articulated, was based upon homicides, not overall deaths. If you'd like to further the argument, which is fine, then change the subject to what you'd like for it to be. To, out of nowhere, make an equivocation pertaining to something completely different than what he'd furthered, then delineate the topic on your own and do some with a modicum of specificity - not just on a whim. I remember when I was in 1st grade, and we discussed segues, probably referencing Dr. Seuss, regardless, the ability to comprehend Seuss is no different than the ability to comprehend someone posting something on the internet. So, yeah, I'll stick with my 1st grade analysis.

A:
Non-toxic
****