Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
See? these people are insane. Threatening to shoot dogs no matter what. Oh, my god, dude, you are a completely nutcase. You do not belong in society. Stay home where you're safe and big scary dogs can't get you.

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
It was more than that Paul.  Vinis repeatedly attacked Clark's record.   And he did not offer any vigorous defense.   Nor did he go on the offensive and attack any of the numerous vulnerabilities that Vinis had.   Apparently he thought he could win this election being a gentleman, and refraining from criticizing Vinis.

However, elections don't work that way.   Attack campaigns do work!   That is why politicians use them so much.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
re: Dirksen - You prefer his "careful" approach? You mean his climate denying? His unwillingness to take a more forthright approach to our region dealing with climate change? To move forward on alternative transportation options? And I suppose this means you want careful movement on urban growth and other Metro-related issues; golly, we can't move too fast, gotta be careful. Don't want to act as soon as possible on these issues.

Rosenthal is a scientist and someone who has worked with government enough to know how to move forward in a strong, productive manner. Metro could really use him. But you prefer someone who is "careful" while demanding other offices be filled by the kind of bold leadership you reject in this race?

Ex Output:

No