In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Ex Input:
Comment: Upon what evidence do you base your opinion that her response was "phony?"  Or that it was "outrage?"  The outrage that YOU are expressing shows an appalling lack of sensitivity on your part.  Why defend rudeness?

Ex Output:
Non-identity-attack


Ex Input:
Comment: Sullivan, Koch  griffin, Evans do we need to say more. Sullivan Figure it out you left us with a huge deficit , unfinished projects and terrible labor relations. You used Ernie Hall to attack labor. You are using Griffin now. You sir are definitely NOT you dad! Take your golden spoon and close mouth around it and please stay out of our business, You had your chance and you blew it.

Ex Output:
Non-identity-attack


Ex Input:
Comment: I went through this Maverick piece but I did not see Zuma being termed as a thief.
Be that as it may, should he, Zuma, have been called a thief at a public event and he, Zuma, does nothing about this slight to his reputation then it must be that there is more than a grain of truth in Mohale's description/opinion.
Methinks Zuma is up the effluent canal without a propellant device right now. Should he lets this public insult slide then he's agreed to being called a thief yet if he takes legal action on the matter then he takes a skating-on-thin-ice GAMBLE with his political life as he becomes open for some very serious cross examination in a high court action.
Zuma and the Gupta's are living in increasingly interesting times just before December 2017!

Ex Output:

Non-identity-attack