In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

Let me give you an example: Comment: President lied under oath about consensual sex...
Not the same thing as rape.
The answer to this example can be: Sexual-explicit
Here is why: This comment explicitly mentions "consensual sex" and "rape", and thus is sexual-explicit.

OK. solve this:
Comment: Sir, you are begging the question--that is--your conclusion is present in the premises of your argument. You are assuming what you want to prove, namely, that it is an "injustice" to not ordain women.

If God has not called women to orders, then no ordaining women is just. It would be an injustice to ordain them.

In the second place, I define justice as giving something their due--what they are owed. No one is owed the Sacraments. The Sacraments are gifts. Therefore I do not see how one can claim they are entitled to any of the Sacraments, let alone ordination.

In any case, in order to claim that the Church teaching on women is unjust, you have to prove that God is calling women to ordination in the first place--and THAT, sir, is the question. THAT is what is at issue.
Answer:
Non-sexual-explicit