In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Ex Input:
Comment: The unfortunate problem with appointing pliable idiots to do your dirty work is well...that they are idiots.

Ex Output:
Toxic


Ex Input:
Comment: Foreign investors are ignoring Calgary and Montreal because, unlike politically correct Vancouver and Toronto, Albertans and Quebecers would quickly show them how unwelcome they are; if faced with the potential disaster that was allowed to happen in Vancouver and Toronto, politicians in Alberta and Quebec would most likely react with policies that don't harm their citizens.   

The general public doesn't benefit from foreigners parking their cash in Canadian residential real estate, and the Christy Clark,  Harper and Trudeau governments should have reacted to that danger long ago.

Ex Output:
Non-toxic


Ex Input:
Comment: While I read Monica, I rarely comment on her posts. She appears to be imbued with many of the latest best sellers, in some conflict with the Church, and enamored of some theories which I consider half-baked. Obviously she is an intelligent woman, but I don’t see that she and I would have a great deal to talk about.

I have no interest in sticking my thumb into the eye of the Creator, or his Son, by heading down the path of Christianity being just one more “traditional religion”, entertaining the zany notion that “Christian theology” teaches “that our lives are conditioned by spirits”, or supporting the notion that “religions should be required to defend any of their ideas that have the potential to impact people negatively and, if those ideas prove unsubstantiated and harmful, the religion should be limited”, the last of which is straight out of China and the former Soviet Union.

Ex Output:

Non-toxic