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

[Q]: You reveal your ignorance once again. I am reminded of an Alaska Republican house member who used to sponsor a death penalty bill every session. I thought he was generally a pretty good rep. His son wound up starving his grandson to death. Jerry's response was that his daughter-in-law should have been held solely responsible for that awful tragedy. The next year, he again sponsored the bill.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: Guestsquared:  It's really too bad you can't manage to discuss an issue without inserting one or more personal insults.  Again, may I suggest disagreeing with you on this issue or any other does make a person, ipso facto, "ill-informed." I could reply with a like comment and we could waste time and energy exchanging insults.  I'm not interested in doing that. 

 We know, although you and the others who support this law will never acknowledge it,  that it was specifically written to "discourage" panhandling by punishing anyone who donats to panhandlers from a car.   This ban, of course, eliminates the primary source of contributions to panhandlers. It's designed to give Springfield panhandlers the "bum's rush", while hopefully passing the test of its Constitutionality.  It may be supported by the Courts, it may not be.  As I've repeatedly said, that is the Courts' responsibility.  We'll likely get to see how it "plays out."
[A]: No


[Q]: ...or who have that damn predictive text on their cell phones.
[A]:
Yes