Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: Would individuals be required to provide proof of income when they sign up for a library card in your proposed two tier fines system? Is this to become another public service where low income families would be forced to admit poverty and ask for help? Is this a real argument against taking down barriers that prevent kids from access to reading? The library's proposal is a progressive and great idea. If you're worried about kids learning responsibility look to the parents that can afford this high and mighty shit. Life lessons are not the responsibility of the libraries, their responsibility is to provide access to books to the community and they have found a great way to do a better job of this. Why construct a flawed argument against this move?
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: A root problem of how we deal with addiction is that we treat it as fundamentally criminal instead of medical. Sadly, maybe having a young, photogenic, non-minority woman as yet another victim of the 45 years-long War on Drugs™ mentality will further bring attention to how backwards and counterproductive we are as a society and polity in dealing with addiction and treatment. This politically-motivated and special-interest perpetuated “effort” needs to end and the massive resources spent on this miserable boondoggle need to be invested in intelligent and enlightened preventive and medical solutions from the 21st Century. Of course, in addition to the private prison corporations, prison guard unions, governmental recipients of asset forfeiture, etc., the Mexican cartels and everyone else profiting on the black market side will be quite displeased with decriminalization. Take a look at how Portugal has been handling this since 2000. My condolences to the Green family.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: Can we vote for no more politicians?
[EX A]:
No

