Categorize the comment on the basis of toxicity. If the comment is toxic (harmful, malicious, derogatory, threat, insult, identity attck, etc.) output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: According to the author of the article "As a board member, Aaberg pushed the idea of leasing the right for fishing lodges to take boats on the Iliamna River. The village owned 80 percent of it, but a couple of dozen lodges were crowding it with sportfishing clients. The corporation limited use to three boats a day and made the lodges bid for that privilege."
Example Output: No

Example Input: Buying Northern Dynasty stock back is definitely a better deal than providing tax credits for big oil. Tax credits for oil exploration in the Inlet will never ever pay off. Who knows what Pebble could be in a hundred years. It might be like having Prudhoe in the bank all over again. Right now Alaska could buy it back for a small fraction of the money invested. We could have bought it back many times for the money wasted studying the gas line. We could buy in back many times for what we are wasting in oil tax credits.
Example Output: No

Example Input: Wig may be for some renters, but he is _definitely_ against homeowners.

Emily Semple is for both (as well as sensibly addressing homelessness).

Semple is a lot more thoughtful in her positions, whereas Wig seems to be reading from some drama script.

-- Paul
Example Output:
No