Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: It's a common practice, particularly in the sports world.  Those "Hole-in-One" golf awards are quite commonly funded by an insurance policy, for example.  You need to expand your horizons somehow if this is news to you.
Example Output: No

Example Input: Would individuals be required to provide proof of income when they sign up for a library card in your proposed two tier fines system? Is this to become another public service where low income families would be forced to admit poverty and ask for help? Is this a real argument against taking down barriers that prevent kids from access to reading? The library's proposal is a progressive and great idea. If you're worried about kids learning responsibility look to the parents that can afford this high and mighty shit. Life lessons are not the responsibility of the libraries, their responsibility is to provide access to books to the community and they have found a great way to do a better job of this. Why construct a flawed argument against this move?
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: If you have no integrity with the publicly stated beliefs of your religious denomination, that's between you and God. You are a private citizen, believe as you wish. 

But, your fellow Conservative Baptist Imago Dei church-member, Jules Bailey, has put the integrity of his beliefs (or, more accurately, lack of integrity, if I'm following his waffling correctly), up for public scrutiny. 

People who choose to become paid public figures, must expect to be scrutinized as such. And, it's a bit naïve for an Evangelical Christian to run for public office, in Portland, and not expect to be held accountable for the history of his chosen religion, particularly the past 30 years here in Portland (OCA, Oregon Family Council, etc.)
Example Output:
No