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.

Example Input: Comment: I had a 'roll my eyes' moment reading your post. 

The problem with die-hard political hacks such as yourself is that you are content to use tired cliches that don't really correspond to reality. 

Have you at all been paying attention to the province's labour negotiations with its various unions? I don't think they are on very good terms with most of these 'public sector unions'.
Example Output: Disagree

Example Input: Comment: Canada's CO2 contributions are significant, especially on a per capita basis. Don't forget that we should really be factoring in emissions being exported to foreign countries like China through proposals like Kinder Morgan.

Donald Trump or no Donald Trump, the world is already well underway to a transition to an economy based on renewable energy. In the US much of the work is being done at the state level, and carbon pricing is already common in many other countries, particularly across Europe.

The challenges in Ontario have gone from poor implementation(from poor leadership) and restrictions faced through trade law. The actual big picture was the right one. A few Green MPP's would have helped.

The problem with Trudeau's plan is the proposed carbon tax(for provinces without carbon pricing) is too low, and you can't be serious about reducing emissions while simultaneously building pipelines. He's trying to please everyone at the same time. This makes for ineffective climate policy.
Example Output: Disagree

Example Input: Comment: There is a stunning paragraph, right here:

"As of December 2016, there were 1,612 filled positions, among which 30 per cent were women. That fits with the fact between 2000 and 2015, 31 per cent of applicants for the jobs were from women."

Hello?

Did I read that correctly?

About 30 percent of the applicant professors were women, and about 30 percent of the chosen recipient professors were women?

Um, where's the sexism?

Or wait, is the sexism sitting there in Ottawa in the Office of the Science Minister, a sexism that is so out-of-control and strong-armed that it wants to throw young male researchers under the bus, in an agenda of bigoted gynophilia?
Example Output:
Agree