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.

Comment: Where were you when the media, blacks, and liberals kept bringing up race every time there's a police shooting? Your double standard is glaring.
Identity-attack

Comment: Cancer In her womb!
Non-identity-attack

Comment: I read EVERYTHING...that includes the SA and other mainstream sources, as well as independent rags, eyewitness reports on Facebook, and even the comments left in message boards such as this one. From there, I utilize CRITICAL THINKING to discern facts from rhetoric. It's what intelligent people do. Perhaps you should do the same. But then again, ignorance is bliss and you seem to take comfort in being a sheeple.

By the way, your use of the rhetorical device known as "red herring" tactic hasn't escaped me. The original issue here is that you claimed Ed has gang tats, I corrected you...and instead of saying "Oh, my bad" or simply not replying, you chose to become defensive and argumentative, and change the subject. Then, when I called you out on the fact that you don't seem to even know what "media bias" means, you continued to be defensively argumentative. Definitely not the sign of an intelligent debater. Some colleges offer critical thinking classes, BTW. I used to teach those.
Non-identity-attack