In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Example Input: Comment: Is there less sexual assault in areas where the electricity is generated from fossil fuels compared to areas that generate their electricity by nuclear power.  Are off the grid solar powered homes or communities areas of high sexual assault.  The method that you generate electricity does not influence the occurrence of sexual assault and for Perry to suggest so shows either his ignorance or his extreme partisanship.  Either way, he demonstrates that he should be ignored and is unfit for his position.
Example Output: Non-identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: Peter: The reason why it's difficult to take deal with issues raised in the letter is that the writer is largely dealing in hyperbole and bromides.  

Here's an example: "Trump’s tax cuts would increase investment, boost productivity and wages and increase innovation and opportunities for all Americans." That's silly. Tax cuts for the super-wealthy don't result in any of those things (or if they do the effect is neglible). The Bush tax cuts sure didn't result in that stuff. 

Most of the other statement are similar. Just a whole bucket of simplistic statements with little regard for the complexity of any of these issues.
Example Output: Non-identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: Dr. Krugman is wealthy enough from his own work (plus the Nobel Prize, 1.2 million, no doubt invested brilliantly by a very smart economist) that he would actually get a substantial tax cut from the proposed budget, if it passes. So in that sense, he is arguing against his economic interest for the sake of people like you, who would get screwed.
Example Output:
Non-identity-attack