In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

Ex Input:
Comment: I have a challenge that I extend to any members or supporters of the Toronto Chapter of Black Lives Matter.

Do you folks realize what a poor reputation you have with so many Canadians?

Seriously, you wreck a recent parade by laying down and obstructing and refusing to budge.

Who does that?

And your group has trouble - I mean seriously - has trouble somehow seeing that it is a HELPFUL thing for society when police are there in support of a pride parade with a police float?

My view of the Toronto Chapter of Black Lives Matter is that it is an organization comparable to a pile of unhelpful garbage. You folks are elbows up, in peoples' faces, demanding everything be your way or no way, you are like a bunch of three year olds having angry tantrums, you are like Donald Trump.

Please feel free to try to defend your pathetic organization under this post. Or else just accept it: Your group provides a lousy role model for anybody noticing your group.

Ex Output:
Agree


Ex Input:
Comment: I have the following observations:
1.  Doctors, the subject of the article, have little risk of going out of business.
2.  If the family members are  running the business they will not be affected by the "income sprinkling" measures.  Those measures are only targeted at family members, like adult children who are attending university away from home, who receive income from the corporation and do not contribute to the business.
3. How can you argue that high income incorporated professionals, who get to reduce their taxes by allocating their income among family members and then have the whatever is left taxed at low small business rates, are paying their fair share?  Compare them to  the average person who is making a fraction of the income of the professional yet has their much smaller income taxed at the regular full marginal tax rates.
3.  Attacking the government officials who came up with these measures is  spurious.

Ex Output:
Disagree


Ex Input:
Comment: Don't you think that the argument that ON, or Canada, or any jurisdiction for that matter, is too small to make a difference is a cop out?  If every jurisdiction thought that way, there would be no reason for any to act.  It's a classic Tragedy of the Commons situation.  The problem is a worldwide one, and everybody must be prepared to do their part.

My question to you would be: Do you believe that anthropogenic global climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed?  If so, how would you do it differently than this cap-and-trade system?

Ex Output:

Disagree