Weak Analogy on my Part?

Children who believe in Santa Claus are delusional.

False premise. Ad hominem (abusive). Hasty generalization.

Children who believe in Santa Claus could be just children with active imaginations and not necessarily delusional.  Should children with active imaginations be banned from a debate? Actually, it could be a lot of fun, but I don't think many of us would take it too seriously. A child might also be quite knowledgeable about the origins of Santa and believe in certain variations of the myth without being too imaginative or delusional.

The legend of Santa Claus has roots in various countries, myths, and cultures, and with authentic historical origins. One could feasibly believe in one of these historical personages e.g. (Saint Nicholas, assuming he is a real person) and not be entirely fabulistic or deluded, and yet still not believe in the Coca-Cola version. So the term belief is ambiguous and open to numerous interpretations.

Belief in God is the same as belief in Santa Claus.

False equivalence. God is a creation myth, Santa Claus is not. A child could believe in God and not Santa.

Belief in one is not the same as belief in the other, but the premise assumes that it is.

Weak Analogy.

X is a false epistemology

People who argue for X are delusional

Therefore people who argue for X should be banned from debating.

Isn't the whole purpose of a debate to get to the truth?

In a debate, a person was making an argument that all religious people should be blocked from religious debates because they are all deluded and cannot make any logically valid arguments in relation to religion

This is just bullshit. Just because a person comes to a conclusion you consider to be illogical does not mean their reasoning (either overall or in that particular argument) is invalid.

The person has either had too many bad experiences in debating religious people (which makes their statement understandable, but still wrong) or they're going off based on their own prejudice (which makes their statement wrong and arrogant). Either way, it's a hasty generalization.

Now, I am wondering if that particular response of mine is a weak analogy or not?

Just some semantics, but the person said "religious people are deluded and cannot make logically valid arguments in relation to religion", not "religious people are deluded therefore they cannot make logically valid arguments in relation to religion." They're distinct, though I guess if I follow that person's disposition to religion they likely meant the latter.

Now for the not-semantic part: you conflated "talking about Christmas" (A) with "believing in Santa" (B). It is possible to do A without the B; every adult does (because they know better), and every kid, once they attain reason, will eventually start. 

Because you're no longer comparing like for like, this is unfortunately a weak analogy. A stronger analogy would be "people who believe in Santa are deluded...therefore they should be barred from debates on Santa's existence".

You've correctly identified your friend's reasoning as absurd, but for the wrong reasons :(

You kind of lost me by adding in the Christmas Festival part. When creating an analogy, try to match the form as closely as possible:

"all religious people should be blocked from religious debates because they are all deluded and cannot make any logically valid arguments in relation to religion."

All X people should be blocked from X debates because they are all deluded and cannot make any logically valid arguments in relation to X.

Now try to plug in a term that makes this look absurd (if that is your goal with the analogy).

Also, talking about Christmas is not the same as debating if Santa is real or not. So overall I would say it is a weak analogy, sorry.

On a related note, emotion can be a powerful tool to "neutralize" an emotional attachment to an argument. This technique can allow those ideas compartmentalized (not subject to the same reasoning used with other arguments) to be subject to reason and logic. This happens in debate. So I would strongly disagree with the claim being made.