Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: I sure hope that dog was able to bite that asshole before he was killed- and wyatt that is the stupidest answer you have given! he probably died protecting his owner and I give him kudos for hopefully biting or injuring the shooter who tried to kill his owner
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: The national and state guard need to go to this place and help them pack up and follow them to the border. If they come back every single one of them need to be arrested and charged for trespassing on Federal property.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: This 20 page opinion is a real example of legal hair splitting.  The Supreme Court  acknowledges that libel is actionable per se (without money damage or special harm) if false information is published in a written form (like this site).  They then wander off to the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit opinions and decide that in spite of all that, basically that “two-faced,” “crooked” and “rude.” were not 'provably false' and based on all the facts and circumstances, protected by the 1st Amendment, in the facts of  this case.  This is going to make such lawsuits even more unpredictable than they already were, in my opinion.
[EX A]:
No