In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: insult and non-insult. Insult is any lanugage or act that is disrespectful or scornfully abusive.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Umm, there was a play that had an Obama look alike killed.  You just don't know it because as a Trump follower you blindly follow without research.  The left did not turn the play into political rhetoric.  They just went about their day.  Your turn.

Output: Non-insult


Input: Consider Input: Comment: What is particularly Christian about being anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-trans?  Why not anti charging interest, or anti war?

Output: Non-insult


Input: Consider Input: Comment: How much further down this road of politicians virtue signaling around sexual assault are we going to go?

We're already treating sexual assault to completely different standards than we do other violent crimes. Crown witnesses in sexual assault cases are presumed victims in most of the language, can give court testimony remotely so they don't have to face the accused directly, and are guaranteed anonymity that other Crown witnesses do not get.  Now we're talking specialized training on the federal dollar for sensitivity, but just for that one offense?

Are we going to stop before evidentiary standards get watered down, or before 'innocent until proven guilty' becomes a thing of the past ... just for this offense?  I'm reminded of the UCR, which leads off their section on violent crime by noting men and women see roughly equal violent crime rates ... and then follows that up with a section devoted to arguing how women still have it worse, despite the equal rates.


Output: Non-insult