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.

Comment: Gore won the popular vote. It came down to Florida and Gore was in the process of conceding when the closeness of the Florida vote triggered an AUTOMATIC recount. That recount, with its problems, made a court review necessary, not optional.
Try being coherent: we're talking about Trump screaming, before a ballot is cast, that the election is rigged, that he cannot commit to conceding after the ballots are counted. Context is all. You probably don't even know that Pence has said he would abide by the voter's will. Or that many, many Republicans already are condemning Trump's words.
I suppose you're fine with Trump sniggering on Howard Sterns's show as the great lecher described Trump's daughter as a hot "piece of ass." What father wouldn't punch that guy in the face? Trump is a very sick man. At this juncture, to support him is the act of a morally confused person.
Insult

Comment: All methods of reducing dental decay should be employed - It's something to consider.

Explain how, when water containing 0.7 mg/l fluoride ions has never been considered a medication, fluoridation opponents can claim the water treatment method is forced medication.  It would be like me claiming disinfection is forced poisoning and demanding that it be stopped.  Chlorine gas is a known chemical weapon, bleach is a strong poison that no one would want to drink, and studies on disinfection byproducts have shown they are poisonous at high exposure levels - would you want to drink a glass of chloroform?

Fluoridation opponents invent definitions to fit their agenda when there is absolutely no support for those claims.
Non-insult

Comment: stupid killing stupid should remind people that stupid has no boundaries.

Insult