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.

Ex Input:
Comment: In the 2008 movie "Recount" Tom Wilkerson played James Baker, lead counsel for the Bush team in "Bush v. Gore." In the movie, and I can only assume this is based on fact, Baker tells his legal team, "this is a street fight, boys," while Gore's legal team was playing by strict Marquess of Queensberry rules. Gore lost and the street fighters won. So it has been ever since. 

Whenever Republicans can find a loophole to circumvent the law, procedure, precedent, whatever it takes to win, they take it, and the people who vote for them register their approval by reelecting them. That means that if our democracy is being whittled away by the present Republican-controlled Congress it is because their constituents in their gerrymandered districts have allowed it. Something tells me that when the full implications of their actions dawn on them down the line they'll regret having supported people who violated two centuries of convention for short-term political gain. By then it will be too late.

Ex Output:
Non-insult


Ex Input:
Comment: I was not referring to a Mexican agent. It will be a tit-for-tat situation.

Ex Output:
Non-insult


Ex Input:
Comment: "Neither teen was visible on the two minutes of footage during their sexual encounter."

If neither teen was visible during the entire encounter, then what is the issue?  I'm not fluent in child pornography laws, but how can what basically amounts to an audio recording be considered as such?

Ex Output:

Non-insult