When you compare to other methods of birth control, it’s not effective for teens.
Using it as an argument against providing free condoms to high schoolers is just annoying and not constructive.
It's like arguing that cars don't need seatbelts by saying "we don't need seat belts, after all, not driving is a solution that's 100% effective in preventing vehicle collision injuries." True, but not even remotely useful as an argument for whether or not cars should have seatbelts.
If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
The relevant sentences from those two comments:
> teaching abstinence as the ideal doesn’t mean you have shun condoms.
Ok.
> Abstinence is a 100% effective. Note that I explicitly acknowledged that kids will have sex sometimes and think they should use condoms if they do.
This is the only comment I've seen where you've acknowledged that kids will have sex, and that they should you use condoms. If you've said it elsewhere in this thread, I haven't seen it.
While it's true you haven't argued against condoms, it's hard to imagine you support schools providing free condoms when your response to the idea is consistently "abstinence is 100% effective."
> If you agree with everything I said why are you opposing me?
What I am opposing is the repetition of "abstinence is 100% effective."
Why is stating this important to you? Are you suggesting it as an alternative to handing out condoms? Are you suggesting that abstinence education is preferable?