You are mistaken. I am not defending my "silliness". I am attacking your bad arguments. Now your turning tail while also trying to paint me in a bad light. That is cool, and you're entitled to do that. None of this matters after all. If you do want to stick around then I am game for a discussion.

I feel like you've missed something along the way which I will try to spell out here: I never said that cookies were better than coffee.

Here is a paraphrased summary of the discussion so far:
Me - Opining that glorifying coffee to children isn't any better than glorifying cookies.
You - Claiming that coffee is essentially a health drink and cookies are junk food.
Me - Calling your argument disingenuous because it compares the best-case coffee to the worst-case cookies.
You - Restating that coffee is healthy and all cookies are unhealthy, save for an imaginary disgusting cookie.
Me - Restating my initial argument and listing my issues with your arguments so far.
You - An attempt to insult me maybe, and also an attempted (or successful) getaway?

And now we're here. Ever since your first comment I've been trying to have a discussion about your blanket claims that coffee is healthy and cookies are unhealthy. I'm not trying to say cookies are better than coffee, or coffee is worse than cookies. I've been trying to convey to you that I find your blanket statement to be a bad argument.

You never clarified what type of coffee beverage you were referring to as a health drink. Based on the context I've been assuming just a straight black coffee or espresso. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. When it comes to cookies though you've been exclusively referencing junk food cookies high in processed sugar. Yes, I agree that a black coffee is going to be less detrimental to your health than a serving of Oreos. But if those are your only points of comparison then it is an unfair comparison to make. I can easily go the other way and compare a serving of homemade low/no sugar whole-wheat oatmeal raisin cookies to a Starbucks iced latte or Tim Horton's double-double. Does that make coffee the villain? No. Both arguments are bad because they skew the reference samples to fit the narrative that the arguer is trying to push.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think comparing only junk food cookies to a specific preparation method of coffee is a bad comparison. Using that comparison as the basis of your argument only weakens your stance. Throwing in a straw man and some vague ad hominem only weakens your stance further.

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. You can live your best life and take from this discussion what you will, I can't stop you nor do I want to. I sure would like to clear up some misunderstandings here, but it is what it is.

Edit: Some light formatting.