Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: Wish this information from your January 14th article had been brought forward to this update:

” This year’s policy debate topic focuses on domestic surveillance by the federal government. For half of their rounds, debaters are assigned to argue for reducing surveillance. During the other half, debaters will argue for maintaining present levels of surveillance”

The subject of a debate should always be part of a real news story. Obviously, if it is extemporaneous debate, that isn’t possible. Here, you had the information two months ago and just lost it between article and update.
[A]: No


[Q]: We are in agreement. But what does it matter if one is dealt with before the other, particularly since the campus policy effects thousands every day, staff, students, and visitors, while the capitol might see a few hundreds a year? The perfect is the enemy of the good, it is perfectly valid to remove restrictions one step at a time.

That is, after all, how we went from no legal carry in '93 to permitless in '04. One improvement at a time.
[A]: No


[Q]: He did not call all Mexicans rapists.   He did say, and it has been proven that some of the illegal aliens are indeed rapists and murders.
[A]:
Yes