I apologise for the gruffness of how I handled my words before. I speak bluntly, but I must admit a was bearing my fangs so to speak more than I now feel was necessary. I was not being a prosecutor, that has legal ramifications, but I know you mean persecutor. I've actually been thinking over the idea of Sans and Papyrus together. I'm still not on board with the majority of it, but in some very specific contexts, it could work. I'm actually mulling over a Lusttale story featuring Sans and Papyrus regularly "performing" in Grilby's Nightclub.
If you want to give yourself a better argument, then you'll want to drop the idea of Fontcent not being incest. It is, plain and simple, and denying that only makes your argument weaker, especially since you acknowledge their familial relations to each other in other parts of your essay.
You also assert that Sans and Papyrus already have romantic interest in each other in the middle of your fourth paragraph, something you should avoid as the context of that sentence implies you are using it as evidence, not the argument.
Lastly, you cannot say there's nothing wrong with fontcest in your conclusion, as you are being overly defensive by saying it, and readers are almost guaranteed to disagree with the statement even if they were on the fence.
Instead, bolder your argument with specific criteria that are harder to argue against, like when Sans and Papyrus are both physically and mentally adults (This is mostly to protect Blue), they are both consenting to romantic and/or sexual relationships, and there is effectively a zero percent chance of having any children. Even adopting is in a grey area because this is not the same as a standard Holosexual relatonship. This final point is arguably the one you should highlight most, as it blunts the question of, "what about the kids?"
I am curious to see if you'd be willing to revise this essay as a better argument or debate me down here. I will be on the lookout.
