Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: You would think the author of this post, or an editor at Willamette Week, would have been able to do a simple Google search and realized: 

1. There is already an article titled "Your Uber Driver Hates You," written in Sept. 2014: https://idrivesf.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/your-uber-driver-hates-you/

2. A Buzzfeed listicle titled "Ten Reasons Why Your Uber Driver Hates You" followed shortly after: http://www.buzzfeed.com/kellkontraire/ten-reasons-why-your-uber-driver-hates-you-xk61

3. To update the myriad reasons why your Uber driver hates you with one extra reason is just a lazy way to make your point. 

4. Also, lists are dumb.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: "Are there other instances out there of needless bureaucratic hurdles that restrict Oregonians’ ability to exercise their legal rights?"

Insert copy of Lane County Fee Schedule here. Pages 1 through 18 Inclusive..

http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/CAO/Documents/Budget/Final%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf
Example Output: No

Example Input: The media views its 'job' as defining the debate so it can guide the electorate to its preferred result.  The fact that Trump and Sanders are demonstrating that they don't have that power is what has their knickers in a bunch.  They are finding out what the non-establishment voters know already; it sucks to be irrelevant.
Example Output:
Yes