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.

Ex Input:
Comment: "This was the home run Trump promised"
You might be a lawyer, Christine, but you're no umpire.  This is just another one of Trump's most foul balls.

Ex Output:
Toxic


Ex Input:
Comment: Darn!  Why does it seem that lawmakers are constantly getting blind sided?  Is it just a fact that private sector have much more knowledgeable and work harder to find 'their cut' vs those who write the laws?  

Repeal the law.  We don't need to be losing $100 M a year in revenues, period.  We taxpayers are NOT going to bail out Oregon just because you politicians are too stupid to understand the laws you are writing.  

I just don't understand humans

Ex Output:
Toxic


Ex Input:
Comment: This endorsement maximizes the marginal accomplishments of the Council and side steps its preoccupation w/social issues it's ill suited to legislate, like recent "panhandling laws" which risk an expensive 6 figure legal challenge if unconstitutional.  The RG assumes the ultra-strained "progress" downtown is from "a planning process for Springfield Downtown revitalization" rather than the influx of Eugene money (Planktown) which ironically brings most of its customers from its dreaded sister rival. There's still no real City-led plan that includes a livable, working, & commerce sustaining or attractive downtown.  There's little acknowlegdement of community as critical.  "Not going backwards" after 30 years of timber decline isn't the same as "progress." And Sean Dunn is right, the City agenda is primarily led by (old) city managers.  Polite/supportive calls for "new energy" from many candidates as well as myself isn't a coincidence, its required.    www.springfields-young-future.com

Ex Output:

Non-toxic