Here at the Guardian, we like to discuss serious, journalism-related issues like the A.S. Council’s latest doings, UC policy, the U.S. economy and whether chocolate is better than vanilla.

Now, when discussing such emotional subjects as these, it is important to phrase one’s arguments with a certain degree of open-mindedness, intelligence and understanding. That said, if you think vanilla is better than chocolate, you are the biggest moron on the planet.

OK. Before this goes any further, I should mention here that this particular column in not about denouncing vanilla as the most disgusting thing since Goobers (because as far as I’m concerned, that shit is really gross and should be banned in 49 states). Vanilla is a fine flavor. I will even go so far as to conculsively say that vanilla is good. That, however, is exactly the point. Vanilla is only “”good.”” It can never be great. It can never be chocolate.

Vanilla is like foreplay for your tastebuds: You can have a good time with it, but adding to it can only make it better. In other words, vanilla is the basis for the greatness, the perfection, the mouth-watering orgasm that is chocolate.

And would you settle for foreplay when you could have sex? I think not. So why settle for vanilla when you could have chocolate?

Arguably, you can’t have chocolate without vanilla. Every chocolate recipe involves vanilla. Why? Vanilla tastes good. No doubt about it. But if something can only be improved by adding other flavors (like chocolate) to it, then it cannot, by definition, be the best there is. Vanilla, therefore, cannot be the best. This is because chocolate is.

For example, on Valentine’s Day, you do not (unless you’re an idiot) give your significant other a box of vanilla. This is because you want to give the people you love the best, which (as I think I have made clear) is chocolate. Of course, this is also because chocolate is an aphrodisiac. Chocolate makes you horny — enough said.

Think about it. (The chocolate, not being horny — stay with me here, people.)

Technically, I can end this column by saying chocolate is conducive to sex and be completely confident that I have won my argument. But there are still more reasons why chocolate kicks vanilla’s metaphoric ass, and because I enjoy a solid ass-kicking, I shall enumerate them.

First of all, the names of chocolate-flavored foods are better. Anything just vanilla can only be called exactly that: vanilla.

Boring.

But chocolate foods have a plethora of cool names. Devil’s food cake (for Satan-worshippers), better-than-sex cake (for nymphomaniacs), milk chocolate (for the bovine-inclined), and so on. These are cool names. You want to eat this stuff.

Furthermore, chocolate is a national issue in countries all over the world. The Swiss, who are neutral on every other issue, have taken a stance and named their own chocolate. Then there’s Belgian chocolate. German chocolate cake. Dutch chocolate. French silk pie.

Do you see any countries fighting to name their own vanilla? Umm, no. The only nation dumb enough to even consider such a stupid idea is probably Russia, and we all know what happened to them. Mm-hmm.

Now, the argument has been made that vanilla is the most popular ice cream flavor, thus clearly proving that it is better than chocolate.

Obviously, this is not true. The only reason people buy so much vanilla ice cream is to put chocolate toppings on it.

And even if all those people are eating the vanilla straight-up, since when does the fact that a lot of people do it make it right? A lot of people voted for Bush. A lot of people have mullets. A lot of people are math majors. A lot of people are celibate. Does that make any of those things right? Absolutely not.

So basically, chocolate makes you horny, and Russia is probably against it. If you need any more reason than that to like chocolate better than vanilla, take a carton of vanilla ice cream and jam it right up your ass. See how much you like it then.