Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: I see the user guide above, but does Civil offer any advice on what should be flagged? I see three options in Flag: "abuse/harassment, spam or threat to self or others". Those last two are fairly clear, but I can imagine disagreement on the first. I'd be interested in which of the comments below rises to abuse/harassment and I imagine there is disagreement within commenters.

A. "This is a horrible idea".
B. "This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard of and anyone who supports it is doesn't understand the underlying issues".
C. "Anyone who supports this awful idea is ignorant".
D. "Anyone who supports this awful idea is an idiot"
E. "I can't believe you support this idea- you must be an idiot".
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Realize that the unfunded liability is mostly not about the retirement system at all. It is about massive errors by actuaries and bad behavior by politicians. Cleaning it up is a multi-billion dollar mess that local agencies are responsible for technically. The amount of money can potentially swamp their budgets. The state SHOULD be covering all of it, but they "pass" money back to local governments and school districts and then "take" it again. This artificially inflates the numbers Mr. Boyle likes to use, suggesting the school boards actually see and use that money. They don't.
This is weaseling back on their own problem, dumping it to locals, and they have to do stuff like that late in the session without input, because the more people get a chance to understand it, the less they like legislators.
Example Output: No

Example Input: I'm from Alaska and Idaho, and your damn right I'd shoot!!! Why don't you go bail Codey out and be his third party since you feel so sorry for him... Let him in your house and on your property!!! Maybe you can shoot eachother and save us tax payers some money.
Example Output:
Yes