smoking cigarettes is stupid

I will begin by addressing my opponent’s final statement: "“CON has not proven that we would have more overall happiness if we smoked"Smoking stimulates the brain to pleasure. Indeed, what is happiness? Definition of happy: "characterized by a dazed irresponsible state" [1]and"enjoying or characterized by well-being and contentment" [1]Pleasure and contentment are the same. There is no point in denying smoking's correlation with happinessBoth factors are inherent in smoking. Definitional stance proves this assertion. This, along with the philosophical supplication of happiness, more than adequately establishes smoking as an inducer of happiness and, concurrently, a good choice for the average Joe. "CON. . . seems to concede that there are obvious better alternatives. therefore, smoking is a stupid choice”My opponent again fails to understand my premises. CON is not here to prove whether we are going to have MORE overall happiness by smoking, CON is here to prove that there exists, within smoking, goodness for the general populace. That there are better alternatives has completely nothing to do with the resolution. Let me give another example (if you haven’t got the study example, I’m sure this will hit home): Person A exercises 2 hours a day. Person B exercises 2 hours a day AND follows a healthy diet. Obviously, Person B’s alternative is much better than that of Person A, but this DOES NOT MAKE PERSON A’s ALTERNATIVE BAD. Both alternatives are good. Similarly, Person A’s choice, although not the best alternative, is nevertheless a good alternative, as con has already established. This is ALL CON has to establish since the debate context his opponent sets only asks him to prove that smoking is good, NOT smoking is better. “1 second equals 120 years? no, but instead of getting into that premise, let me address the conclusion you drew from it by asking you, would you rather have most of your life filled with unhappiness that comes from bad health, or most of your life filled with joy from health? ”The conclusion drawn from this premise (which my opponent allegedly concedes) is resolute. My opponent asks whether CON would rather have most of his life filled with unhappiness from bad health or joy from good health. This is what is generally considered a loaded question, and is based off two assumptions while completely ignoring what has already been conceded earlier. Assumption 1: Unhealthiness brings unhappiness. Assumption 2: Health brings joyThe ignored: Smoking brings happinessLet me reword my opponent’s question: “Would you rather have your life filled with happiness at the cost of health or would you rather be healthy? "This would more adequately address what CON has established (what PRO has failed to refute)My opponent hasn’t yet proven either assumption. His question is therefore irrelevant. “"for all the pointless fuss over health, attractiveness, money, etc. , isn't a person's happiness the only thing that truly matters? Since death is only moments away, shouldn't a person spend whatever time he/she has in his/her life doing what makes him/her happy? "-peoples overall happiness is generally negatively impacted by not attaining those things. ”My opponent does not address my implied statement which, in summary, runs thus: A person's happiness is not determined by set factors. The factors of happiness is anything a person deems as such for him/herself. Therefore, if smoking is deemed as a happiness-bringing factor, then it is, for the general mass of individuals, good. Have you ever had trouble finding happiness in your life? Smoking creates an extraneous but plausible method of happiness. Smokers, especially those who've garnered an addiction, are able to find that, upon smoking, they are happy. They no longer need to FIND what makes them happy, they KNOW what makes them happy. If we were to factor out religion, then what would be the purpose of life? Wouldn't it boil down to the pursuit of happiness? What, then, is wrong with smoking? Smoking is the direct causal media by which a person gains happinessTo prevent a dispute on the definition of good, I will bring up several definitions from Merriam Webster:Good - 1. Handsome; attractive. . 2. suitable; fit. . 3. profitable; advantageous. . 4. Agreeable; Pleasant. . 5. Adequate; Satisfactory. . 6. Right, Commendable [1]Each definition here is derived from Merriam Webster.20th century cinematic culture sported various smoking idols, thereby conforming smoking to the first definition. Smoking is suitable and fit toward the pursuit of happiness (which is in itself a good) and therefore fulfills the second definition. Smoking is a profitable venture, creating billions in GDP regularly. It is advantageous not only to our economy, but also for the individual who seeks happiness. Smoking is an agreeable and pleasant experience. It is so agreeable and pleasant, in fact, that its users are apt toward reliving the sensation with another smoke. Definition 4 fulfilled. Smoking is adequate and satisfactory in qualifying as a substance that never fails to deliver what it is supposed to do: stimulate the mind in the form of pleasures, thereby creating happiness which is, as CON has established uncontested, good. Definition 5 satisfied. Smoking is commendable. Smoking has the capacity for being commended. CON has, in fact, been commending it for two whole rounds! Definition 6 satisfied. While smoking qualifies a multitude of definitions of good, it is still prudent to note that it wis satisfactory as a good choice as long as it satisfies just one definition of good. If PRO fails to contest & negate each and every qualification, leaving even one (arguing the credibility of the dictionary), CON wins. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...