Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. Example
Comment: Why do right wingers have so little respect for the rule of law when the law does not advance their personal interests? Is it a lack of empathy? Or a more general lack of basic human decency? I don't doubt that pBurns9 would be the first one to run to the courts if his rights were violated.
Answer: Disagree
Explanation: This comment expresses strong disagreement with right-wing politics, is disrespectful (accusing right-wingers "lack of basic human decency"), and comes with personal attack (to the user pBurns9). Thus, this comment is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement from others.
Part 3. Exercise
Comment: No, Munoz, you are most certainly wrong. Very wrong. The "media storm" is NOT perpetuating the hurt of those victims. What you did hurt them. And all other victims of sexual abuse. The message you sent to those victims was that they were not worth protecting, that you support the predators over them. You sent a powerful message to other predators too. You implied what they do is okay with you. You took measures to show support for them. Under the law. What you did was to make Alaska a predator friendly state. The rights of those suffering from child sexual abuse are not negotiable. Ever.
Answer:
Agree