smoking cigarettes is stupid

"my resolution was to show that smoking is a stupid choice to make. you have conceded that there are obvious better decisions." Let me refresh the reader on the parameters PRO has created in setting this debate:"My position: smoking cigarettes is a stupid choice for the average person to make.CONs position: smoking cigarettes is a good choice for the average person."I did not concede that there are better options. I concede that there are potentially better options and that their potential superiority, if such exists, is irrelevant to CON's side of the resolution. If my opponent had somehow established correlation between a stupid choice vs. an inferior choice, he might have gained some ground (maybe). Here I will refer back to the example in which the choice to exercise/study one hour a day, although inferior to the 2-hour a day decision, is not stupid. My opponent fails to contend against this. "in fact i listed a couple benefits in my first post. drinking urine can be called good because it can temporarily help quench your thirst, but it's stupid to drink urine when you could drink water. by your logic, drinking urine is a good choice to make."1. I contended against each and every benefit you've 'posted'2. Drinking urine quenches thirst and is thus a good option toward the goal of self-sustenance (this is what people who are out of water do while wandering through deserts.) However, there is a difference between my example of smoking over something else, and your example. Urine's accessibility is rather low in comparison to water. Happiness is not easy to obtain. Smoking is, however, a quick and easy access to happiness, pleasure, satisfaction and therefore, goodness. By the example provided by PRO, Drinking water : smokingDrinking urine : other-methods-of-obtaining-happiness I don't see my opponent's point, but my opponent's example only serves to further my case.My opponent concedes several points:1. Happiness & its pursuit is, in itself, a form of good, making smoking a good choice.2. Smoking matches 6 definitions of 'good' from a credible source. Smoking can be consequently categorized as a good under definitional clauses3. Smoking is a good choice, but not the best. CON however has no need to prove that smoking is the best choice for the average person, CON only has to prove that smoking is a good choice for the average person. I believe I've already produced enough adequate examples to prove the following:The existence of a better choice doesn't make other choices bad/stupid, only inferior. Inferior =/= stupid4. None of the 'points' brought up by PRO correlates to the goodness or stupidity of smoking. PRO, after eliciting several premises based on assumptions (assumptions which CON points out), fails to substantiate said assumptions. CON has contended each and every point uncontested.Conclusion: Since CON has proven smoking to be good (and PRO fails to fulfill the burden of proving smoking to be stupid), the choice to make smoking is then consequently good. A person who decides to smoke is automatically making a good choice, therefore, the decision to smoke is a good choice not only for the average person, but for all people.