In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Example Input: Comment: Do you actually think you need the city council to make a formal declaration in order to avoid an intersection or shopping area in the city? No, you don't need that. Just don't go there, simple solution. 
I have lived in Federal Way for many years. It has definitely changed over time. I see that the mayor and the city council are really trying to make a nice downtown core. I love the new park and I love seeing families out using it. I love seeing young people play basketball there. I love the walkability of the downtown shopping area. I love that we have a new arts facility. Do I love the crime and the drugs, no,  but this area has grown so significantly over the years, I feel like some crime is part of city living. 
If you feel you have so much expertise on city planning, why don't you run for city council and help your city with some suggestions for improvement.
Example Output: Non-toxic

Example Input: Comment: Thousands turn out for Justin Bieber concerts too. It's still shit.
Example Output: Toxic

Example Input: Comment: My point Martin, is not to question Who saved and how - both of which are so much more profound than we can understand - even in a literal recitation of Scripture, but more precisely "who" was/is/will be saved.  Our Catholic Church identifies baptism as the required "entry point".  Some others identify a direct and redeeming "finding" or "encounter", etc.  
Neither a literal recitation of  Scripture nor how people explain, restrict, or qualify through rules and rigidities are, to my mind sufficient to explain, let alone include the "who".
Example Output:
Non-toxic