In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

[EX Q]: Comment: First of all...Trudeau is not responsible for this mess, and has little control over its resolution.
Secondly, Canadians sense of fairness will greatly outweigh the politically-driven faux outrage. I doubt very much Trudeau will be punished for doing the 'right' thing - particularly much of it has been beyond his control. Although low information voters will try to tag him with it.
Canadian values are better than this - no matter how pundits like Ibbitson try to drive another narrative.
[EX A]: Disagree

[EX Q]: Comment: Buh-bye, snowflake.
[EX A]: Disagree

[EX Q]: Comment: No, Munoz, you are most certainly wrong.  Very wrong.   The "media storm" is NOT perpetuating the hurt of those victims.  What you did hurt them.   And all other victims of sexual abuse.   The message you sent to those victims was that they were not worth protecting,  that you support the predators over them.  You sent a powerful message to other predators too.  You implied what they do is okay with you.  You took measures to show support for them.  Under the law.  What you did was to make Alaska a predator friendly state.   The rights of those suffering from child sexual abuse are not negotiable.  Ever.
[EX A]:
Agree