instruction:
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.
question:
Comment: Ms Monsef must step aside as a Cabinet Minister until her status is resolved. We cannot make an exception for one person.
answer:
Agree


question:
Comment: A cash for access event.  A donation to Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation.  He must be getting advise from the Clintons and Premier Wynne.  This is corruption at every possible level.  Justin has just become the new Duffy.
answer:
Agree


question:
Comment: I do not disagree Teleology, and really this should be the first article in a series of science based pieces on the subject. But too often these days we get hundreds of 'anectodal opinion' pieces that promote the only 'correct' viewpoint society should have. These feel good groupthink pieces are largely spurious, fallacious or based on little reasoning or hard statistically relevant data. Thus, when an opposing viewpoint is published that in a mere few thousand words attempts to bring rigorous, rational and data supported thinking back to the debate; I for one applaud it, even if it is not 100% perfect or complete.

I do hope Ms. Soh is not silenced and continues to write such reasoned, data based and as objective as possible, articles.
answer:

Agree


