In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

[Q]: Comment: The questions you should be asking are

What is racist about saying that immigrants from Mexico are rapists and drug dealers?

What is racist about assuming that Muslims are terrorists?
[A]: Identity-attack


[Q]: Comment: I can see that police forces and emergency crews might need that money to deal with a potential increase in impaired driving related issues.
[A]: Non-identity-attack


[Q]: Comment: I read EVERYTHING...that includes the SA and other mainstream sources, as well as independent rags, eyewitness reports on Facebook, and even the comments left in message boards such as this one. From there, I utilize CRITICAL THINKING to discern facts from rhetoric. It's what intelligent people do. Perhaps you should do the same. But then again, ignorance is bliss and you seem to take comfort in being a sheeple.

By the way, your use of the rhetorical device known as "red herring" tactic hasn't escaped me. The original issue here is that you claimed Ed has gang tats, I corrected you...and instead of saying "Oh, my bad" or simply not replying, you chose to become defensive and argumentative, and change the subject. Then, when I called you out on the fact that you don't seem to even know what "media bias" means, you continued to be defensively argumentative. Definitely not the sign of an intelligent debater. Some colleges offer critical thinking classes, BTW. I used to teach those.
[A]:
Non-identity-attack