Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: ...or who have that damn predictive text on their cell phones.

A: Yes
****
Q: "… most" and … rarely" obviously confused you. And it isn't necessary to look across the pond, either. U of Cal students LAST YEAR had a tuition hike-fueled protest in which a large portion of the student body walked out. 
Perhaps you think it's a great idea to have 23-year olds begin their professional lives $20,000 in debt, with interest rates far higher than cars or homes.
It wasn't always this way, just this way since Republicans began their war on the middle-class and the worship of the financial sector. In the sixties, tuition was extremely cheap at state universities; NDSL's had ridiculously cheap interest rates.

A: No
****
Q: "It could just as easily be said any reduction to a dividend under SB 128 would go to fund education, troopers, road maintenance, or health care for the elderly." Yes, except those are services that benefit all Alaskans, not just oil companies. That is not a "convenient talking point," that is a significant difference.

A:
No
****