The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

It Is Normally Sinful for an Underage Wisconsin Catholic Farm Boy to Regularly Use Chewing Tobacco

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 803 times Debate No: 55612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)





I was recently asked a question similar to this, and the answer is that I have no idea. So the best way to resolve this is to debate it.


Normally - as a rule; usually; ordinarily [1]
Sinful - characterized by or being a sin [2]
Underage - Below the customary or legal age, as for drinking or voting. [3]
Catholic - Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church [4]
Farm Boy - a boy who has grown up on a farm [5]
Regularly - at regular times or intervals [6]
Chewing Tobacco - tobacco in the form of a plug, usu. flavored, for chewing rather than smoking [7]


Round 1 is only for pleasantries and acceptance.

8k Characters per Round, 72 Hrs, 3 Rounds, Open Voting, Select Winner Point System.




I accept. But I'd like to point out that it can't possibly be me to whom he is referring, since I didn't grow up on a farm! :-)

With that, I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1



I wish to thank tbhidc for accepting this debate. I look forward to, what I am sure will be, one of the weirdest debates I've yet to partake in. I wish tbhidc good luck.

And with the pleasantries completed I will begin my arguments.


Health problems associated with smokeless tobacco: [8]

• Addiction

• Cancer - esophagal, mouth, throat, cheek, gums, lips tongue, pancreatic and kidney
• Cavities

• Gum Disease
• Heart Disease
• Precancerous mouth lesions


There are two main arguments to be put forth on in this debate:

1) Is it sinful for someone who is underage in Wisconsin to use use tobacco;
2) Is it sinful to regularly use chewing tobacco.

1. Underage Usage of Tobacco

Wisconsin Statute 254.92(2): [9]

(2) No person under 18 years of age may purchase, attempt to purchase, or possess any cigarette, nicotine product, or tobacco product except as follows:

a)A person under 18 years of age may purchase or possess cigarettes, nicotine products, or tobacco products for the sole purpose of resale in the course of employment during his or her working hours if employed by a retailer.

b)A person under 18 years of age, but not under 15 years of age, may purchase, attempt to purchase or possess cigarettes, nicotine products, or tobacco products in the course of his or her participation in an investigation unders.254.916that is conducted in accordance withs.254.916 (3).

So according to the law no person under 18 may purchase, attempt to purchase or possess chewing tobacco.

Wisconsin Statute254.92(2m): [9]

(2m)No person may purchase cigarettes, tobacco products, or nicotine products on behalf of, or to provide to, any person who is under 18 years of age. Any person who violates this subsection may be:

items a) through d) list a variety of fines for breaking the above law.

So we can also note that the intent of the law is that the underage cannot have access to tobacco by circumventing Statute 254.92(2).

Now that the illegality of the underage obtaining chewing tobacco has been established we must establish the sinfulness of breaking the law within the Catholic Faith.

The 4th Commandment

Honour thy Father and thy Mother not only applies to your physical parents, but also to authorities in Civil Society. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC): [10]

2234 God's fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it.

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. ... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. ... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. ... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."

Now Catholics do not have to follow unjust laws that force a Catholic to act in a way contrary to the Catholic Faith or to Natural Law.

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men"

This places the burden on Pro to show that the law is fundamentally unjust as Catholics are normatively required to follow the law.

Thus I have clearly shown that the law requires those under 18 to avoid purchasing, attempting to purchase, having someone purchase on their behalf, or even possessing tobacco. The Church requires Catholics to adhere to civil law under the 4th commandment unless the law is fundamentally unjust. As the purpose of this law is to keep minors from substances which can significantly increase the occurrences of (previously listed) negative health consequences, I find it difficult to believe that this law can be deemed fundamentally immoral.

2. Regular Use of Tobacco

The second contention being presented is whether the regular use of tobacco by underage people is sinful.

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? - 1 Cor 6:19

As saint Paul explained, your body and life are a gift to you. As a you are a baptized into the body of Christ you are responsible to care for the gifts that God the Father has entrusted to you.

Now if you chew once is it a sin? No. You won't build up an addiction or suffer serious health concerns from a single use. But regular use creates addictions and threatens to damage the great Gift God has given. Even farm boys from Wisconsin are these days aware that tobacco use is associated with various diseases, and thus they are unable to argue ignorance. Now they may not believe it, or while they believe it, they may have the young male invincibility attitude that it will not be them who will suffer. However, they know the consequences and they deliberately partake in it. Thus since it has intent and knowledge the action may be sinful.

Additionally, addictions create dependencies which may affect judgement. Thus voluntarily entering into an addiction is an occasion of sin, if not sinful itself.

The Catholic Church believes that the principle of Double Effect [11] can describe whether an action is sinful or not. So we will employ the principle to see whether regular use of tobacco is sinful or not:

a) Is the act itself morally good or morally indifferent?

Yes. It is not innately bad to put chew in your mouth.

b) The good effect must not be obtained by the evil effect.

The "good" nicotine effects are not caused by the possible cancers, etc... It may have something to do with the addiction, but for the sake of argument - Yes.

c) The evil effect must not be intended.

Yes. Nobody chews with the intent of being addicted or getting cancer.

d) Is the good effect greater than or equal to the evil effect?

No. The chances for addiction, cancer, heart disease, etc... far outweigh the unnecessary short term buzz that your average underage chewer seeks.

Thus according to the Principle of Double Effect "normal" regular use of chewing tobacco is a sinful act.


I have clearly shown that, according to Catholicism, the topic of the debate has been affirmed in 2 different manners. Chewing tobacco is an unnecessary danger to the chewer that needlessly damages the great gift of life given by God. Christ told us to render unto Caesar, can Catholics do less than to follow the instructions of Jesus?

I invite Con to give great consideration to these arguments. I look forward to his rebuttal.




Thanks to Geogeer. I'll jump right in.

1. Legality and underage

My opponent has a very very simple argument here. It essentially goes....

P1: Whatever is law of the land and is a just law is something which Catholics are morally bound to obey
P2: The tobacco law is law of the land and is a just law
C: Catholics are morally bound to obey the tobacco law.

So in order for some law to be morally obligatory, it has to have two properties. First, it has to be the official law of the land. Secondly, it has to be a just law.

Now to begin with, I'm going to dispute premise 1. While I agree that this is generally the case, there may be exceptions. For example, just plain silly laws.

What if the government said, "Okay, all men have to wear a blue ribbon all the time, and all women have to wear a pink ribbon all the time." Would this be just? Ehhh. Maybe. Maybe not. In either case, it doesn't seem exactly worthy of the term "unjust". Is it just plain stupid? You bet. It's just silly. It has no point. It's beyond the governments position. So in this case, it is an unjust law.

Now I'd like to point out that since my opponent is the one making the argument, he has the burden of proof to prove it, as well as all the premises.

When my opponent says that I have to show that the tobacco age is unjust, he is committing the fallacy of shifting the burden. [1]

So when my opponent states, "This places the burden on Pro to show that the law is fundamentally unjust as Catholics are normatively required to follow the law." he is shifting the burden of proof. Do we just assume all laws are just until proven unjust? No. We just don't assume either way. We're neutral.

So my opponent has not even tried to defend the second premise. And at this point, it remains unfounded. Is the tobacco age just? We don't know. We just don't know.

However, I will present an argument to think that it is more plausibly unjust than just.

I. It extends beyond the limits of government.
While the Catholic faith does say that government has a role in protecting its citizens, it doesn't say that the government must hold every single citizen's hand. As I will get to below, chewing tobacco is not as unhealthy as one might think, and as such, this law extends beyond the scope and purpose of government. The government does not exist to keep every single person healthy and happy. It exists in order to secure the public welfare of man.

"What, in the abstract, is the actual purpose of government? In both classical political theory and Catholic social teaching, government is not seen as a necessary evil, but neither is it seen as any sort of panacea. Both traditional sources of political theory recognize that man is a social being, that there is necessarily a public order through which we organize our common life together, and that the purpose of government is to secure the common good—not the individual good of each citizen, but the good common to all."

This has been explained in papal encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. The Catholic Church takes neither a socialistic view, nor a libertarian view. It says that the government is an instrument of God which must serve the common good. Not the private good.

II. It deprives an individual of a good for no justifiable reason
I will argue below that chewing tobacco is not as unhealthy as you might think. However, this being the case, it is quite clear why the tobacco age is unjust. It deprives a human being of something which is enjoyable, and which is not extremely harmful... for what reason exactly? None.

It's essentially the same as if the government were to make potato chips illegal, for no justifiable reason. Even if it could be shown that potato chips were somewhat unhealthy, it would be a far cry from making them completely illegal. I'm sure that both me and my opponent would say, "What the hell? I'm still eating my potato chips, and I'll buy them on the deepweb if I have to."

So I've presented two arguments to my opponent's none.

P1: All laws which are beyond the government's position to make are unjust
P2: The tobacco age is beyond the government's potision
C: The tobacco age is unjust


P1: All laws which deny individuals of a good thing without sufficient reasons are unjust
P2: The tobacco age denies an individual of a good thing without sufficient reasons\
C: The tobacco age is unjust

The score at the end of this section...

2 to 0.

2. The health risks of smokeless tobacco

My opponent merely assumes that smokeless, or chewing tobacco, is unhealthy. I'll go right ahead and blow that out of the water.

The oral cancer foundation, who I'm sure isn't very happy about any tobacco products, given their bad reputation states...

"While OCF agrees with this statement, especially in relationship to young individuals, there may be some harm reduction benefit when traditional loose leaf chewing tobacco is compared snus style products, and certainly when compared to with smoking tobacco where combustion of the tobacco is present. This does not mean that we endorse the use of smokeless products" [3]

But like they said, of course, we don't endorsseee it....

So far we know chewing tobacco is far safer than smoking. How much so?

To begin with, oral cancer is extremely rare. It's like getting struck by lightning. So if we even double or triple our chances of getting it, our chances are still alot lower.. as compared to lung cancer, which is like getting hit by a car.

Drs. Lee and Hamling did a study in 2009 in which they found absolutely no significant relation between Swedish Snus and oral cancer. [4] They state:

"An increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer is evident most clearly for past smokeless tobacco use in the USA, but not for Scandinavian snuff."

Drs. Rodu and Cole also presented a study, after which they declared:

"This study found that use of chewing tobacco and moist snuff were associated with only minimally elevated risks"

Dr. Lee also did a study with heart disease and stroke, stating...

""The Swedish studies provided little evidence of an increase for heart disease (1.06,0.83–1.37, n¼5) or stroke (1.17, 0.80–1.70, n¼2)" [6]

He further concluded...

"Any CID risk from ST appears to be substantially less than from smoking, and no clear risk from Swedish snuff is seen." (6)

So now my opponent must prove that chewing tobacco is extremely unhealthy before this argument can get off the ground.

Furthermore, what degree of bad-for-your-healthness does something have to have to make it immoral?

Do potato chips count? What about bacon? What about hockey? Does this make all contact sports immoral, since they result in concussions and brain damage?

What my opponent must do is present an argument and show that "X" degree of unhealthiness makes something immoral. This can't be too big to include football, but can't be too small to exclude chew. Until he can give us a metric, this argument fails.

In addition to this, I'd add that since Wisconsin has a history of serial killers such as Jeffery Dahmer and Ed Gein, who cannibalized people out of sexual urges, chewing should be allowed. Because nicotine can cause erectile dysfunction. The good, that is, people not getting eaten and raped, outweighs the bad of erectile dysfunction.

The resolution does not stand. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to tbhidc for his opening arguments and rebuttals.


1. Legality and Underage & 2. Health combined

a. P1

P1. Catholics are morally bound to obey just laws of the land.

Con provides an example of a trivial law. Such a law is neither based on Natural Law nor Divine Law, it is merely custom. However, such a law has no bearing on this debate as the law we are debating is not trivial in nature.

The Church has a history of obeying Laws which it considers worse than the one we are discussing:

Though innocent, Christ himself was obedient to the Jewish and Roman authorities unto death.

St. Paul ordered Christian slaves to "be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ" Eph 6:5, though he invited them to buy their freedom: "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that." 1 Cor 7:21

If Jesus can be obedient unto an unjust crucifixion and St. Paul encourage Christians to endure slavery under Roman Law, the obedience of the underage to tobacco laws is laughably simple to obey.

It is humorous that Con rails against a burden of proof about the law being unjust, when he implicitly acknowledges this requirement with 2 arguments.

b. P2

P2 The Tobacco Laws are Just

Con makes 2 arguments regarding the unjustness of these laws.

I) The law "extends beyond the limits of the government" because "the government does not exist to keep every single person healthy and happy. It exists in order to secure the public welfare of man."

Con goes on to state "that the government is an instrument of God which must serve the common good. Not the private good."


II) The law "deprives an individual of a good for no justifiable reason" because "chewing tobacco is not as unhealthy as you might think"

On the surface these seem like strong arguments. However, they do not address the debate topic properly. Though Con presents these as two separate arguments they are really one in the same. They are both addressed through an understanding of the health consequences of chewing tobacco.

If soil contamination in your City was equivalent to another Chernobyl, I believe all can agree that the Government has a duty to intervene on the public's behalf. When a drug like Thalidomide was introduced and numerous children suffered defects (including: deafness, blindness, disfigurement, cleft palate, many other internal disabilities, and of course the disabilities most associated with thalidomide: phocomelia [12]) we can justly expect government to intervene in defence of the common good. Governments were justified as a defence of the common good in banning asbestos as a construction material due to serious associated health issues. [13]

So we can see that it is a matter of common good for the Government to limit or restrict materials or drugs in certain circumstances. The issue is a matter or proportionality of the negative consequences versus the restrictions on personal liberties. So let's analyze the health effects of chewing tobacco:

i) Addictive [14]

Nicotine is:
• 1000 X more potent than alcohol
• 10-100 X potent than barbituates
• 5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
• Tobacco is addictive as heroine (as a mood & behavior altering agent)

Withdrawal symptoms include: [14]

Irritability, anger, hostility, anxiety, nervousness, panic, poor concentration, disorientation, lightheadedness, sleep disturbances, constipation, mouth ulcers, dry mouth, sore throat-gums- or tongue, pain in limbs, sweating, depression, fatigue, fearfulness, sense of loss, craving tobacco, hunger

These "Symptoms may last from a few weeks to several months. After withdrawal subsides... urges for nicotine (for the effects of the drug) occur in response to all kinds of cues to smoke or chew." [14]

Research suggests that children and teens may be especially sensitive to nicotine, making it easier for them to become addicted. [15]

ii) Heart disease:

The results of 11 studies from Sweden and North America were compared: "...among users of smokeless tobacco products compared with non-users. Smokeless tobacco caused 0.5% of all heart attacks in the United States and 5.6% in Sweden. The products were also the cause of 1.7% of stroke deaths in the United States and 5.4% in Sweden." [16]

iii) Other Health Effects

A Meta study of smokeless tobacco products (STP), including Swedish snus, was conducted and the results examined [17]:

• All STP contain nicotine, a potent addictive substance
• The major group of carcinogens in STP includes non-volatile tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) and N-nitroamino acids
• TSNA levels in one brand of Swedish snus to be 2.0 microgram/gram
• TNSA levels in 6 American brands varied from 1.3 to 9.2 microgram/gram
• Use of moist snuff results in localised lesions
• gingival retractions caused by moist snuff are not reversible
• a wide variety of STP causes cancer... the pancreas has been identified as a main target organ in two Scandinavian cohort studies... several studies from the USA have provided additional support for a causal association between the use of smokeless tobacco and pancreatic cancer

94% of pancreatic cancer patients die within 5 years. [18]

The addictive nature of STPs was omitted in Con's arguments. Con's health based arguments focused on oral cancer from Swedish snuff. However Swedish snus only accounts for 6% of US snus consumption. [19] At 6% market penetration, this cannot be consider normal usage in Wisconsin. There seems to be contention as to the effects of STP on heart disease between Con's 2007 study and the 2009 study I presented. [16]

3. Sexuality

Though Con jokingly uses Dahmer & Gein as a debate point, he has unwittingly provided a devastating argument for Pro. The argument of the actions of Dahmer & Gein being caused by their sexuality is false according to Catholic doctrine which states that one's sexuality is good and a gift from God [20]. Thus they were personally guilty of a lack of chastity through concupiscence.

However, the effect of STPs on the male's sexuality is twofold:

Con noted that nicotine can cause erectile dysfunction. This can result in: [21]

• Insecurity
• Low self-esteem
• Guilt
• Fear
• Anger & Aggressiveness

Chewing Tobacco can also cause damage to the man's sperm. In frequent STP users, 14% of semen samples were absent of sperm. Additionally, sperm concentration, motility, and morphology were all affected by STP users. [22]

Thus use of STP can affect men's ability to fully partake in his sexuality and may also result in additional deaths or deformation of his unborn children.


Con asked how bad does something have to be to make it immoral. The immorality comes from non-adherence to a just law. While the justice of various laws is debatable, this debate concerns the use of chewing tobacco by underage males in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has chosen a fair and just balance regarding the use of an addictive substance.

This law is just due to the highly addictive nature of nicotine (which is even greater for minors), and the associated negative health effects for him and his potential children. Once the individual has reached the age of majority, he has the ability to choose to consume these products. This is a fair balance of liberty vs common good and in keeping with Catholic doctrine.

As Catholics are bound to follow just laws, the only conclusion to the debate is that: It Is Normally Sinful for an Underage Wisconsin Catholic Farm Boy to Regularly Use Chewing Tobacco just as Christ Himself was obedient to the law unto death.



I will first deal with the health risks associated with chewing tobacco, since lots of this debate rests heavily on it.

Health risks

First of all, I will concede that nicotine is addictive. However, it is not necessarily as addictive to everyone. Some people end up being chain smokers and smoking two packs a day. Some people chew two cans a day. Other people don't. Second of all, caffeine is also addictive. Does this mean that caffeine is immoral to use? Not at all. Simply because something is addictive, this does not necessarily make it unhealthy. The mere property of "being addictive" doesn't make something wrong.

Withdrawal symptoms
My opponent makes a mistake here. He makes it sound as if everyone suffers these withdrawal symptoms. But this isn't necessarily the case. I believe what my opponent should have said is, "Withdrawal symptoms may include". Now if they may include these symptoms, what is the probability? After all, kids may drown in bathtubs, but the chances are unlikely. So this argument is just incomplete. Until my opponent can show the probability of these withdrawal symptoms, and show why this degree of probability makes something wrong, the argument is refuted.

Heart disease
My opponent claims that smokeless tobacco (aka ST) causes heart disease. Once again, he needs to show the major premise. He needs to show why something that causes hearth disease to X degree is wrong. He hasn't done so. He's essentially argued...

P1: Whatever causes hearth disease to X degree is immoral
P2: ST causes heart disease to X degree
C: ST is immoral to use

However, he's not defended the first premise. So I can simply concede the second premise. Yes, ST does cause heart disease to a certain degree. No, this doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral. After all, why should it? We haven't been given any reasons, and as such the first premise of the argument is shown to be a mere assumption.

Other health effects
Once again, my opponent's mistake here is the same as before. Sure, ST may cause pancreatic cancer in some people. Sure, it may cause oral lesions. What is the probability of this? And why does this degree of probability make it immoral?

I can simply reverse my opponent's argument to show that Mountain Dew is immoral.

Mountain Dew contains caffeine.

Caffeine is addictive. [1]

Caffeine can sometimes cause.. [2]

(i) Insomnia and unhealthy sleeping patterns
(ii) Can interact with certain medications and have deadly affects
(iii) Increases blood sugar levels
(iv) Can cause bone loss

And Mountain Dew contains lots of sugar in the form of high fructose corn syrup, which can cause... [3] [4]

(i) Obeisity
(ii) An increase of 48% in heart attack and stroke for diet soda drinkers
(iv) Damage to immune system
(v)Metabolic syndrome
(vi)Dangerous mercury poisons

and many more negative effects which I won't list.

Now we see that it is immoral for Catholics to drink Mountain Dew. Well actually it's not. Likewise, it is not necessarily immoral to use ST.

My opponent is essentially using slippery slope reasoning here. ST may lead to this, which may lead to that, which is bad, so using ST is bad too.

But as I've shown, two can play that game.

Once again, what is the probability that this will happen from nicotine? Secondly, why does this probability make it immoral?

However, since Catholics find that premarital sexual relations are immoral, and a Catholic Wisconsin farmboy will probably not be married, a little erectile disfunction actually seems positive from a Catholic perspective.

Let the Wisconsinites chew on chew so they don't chew on you.

Other rebuttals

Just laws
My opponent still insists that the tobacco age is a just law. However, this rests on the assumption that ST is harmful to X degree, and that things which are harmful to X degree are justifiably made illegal.

But I've undermined this notion above, and as such, we cannot necessarily regard the tobacco age as a just law. It simply hasn't been established.

Personal interpretation of the Bible
My opponent tries to interpret the Bible himself. However, as Catholics, this doesn't really mean much. It's very easy to interpret the Bible however you please. We could say that women must never speak in Church if we were to interpret the Bible as we please.

The case of Jesus obeying the law is a fallacy of a hasty generalization. The case of Jesus obeying the law and being crucified is an unusual and special case. Precisely because he had to be crucified to save mankind from his sins. So to draw a universal conclusion from an unusual premise is just wrong.

The tobacco laws are unjust
My opponent's rebuttals also rest upon the idea that ST is immoral because it is harmful to a certain degree. I've refuted this. The problem with my opponent's analogy is that it's a false one. It's structurally different. As it is obvious that with the case of Chernobyl, the negative effects were extreme and very very very deadly, it hasn't been shown to be the case with smokeless tobacco.

So the analogy compares two things which are structurally different, and does not succeed.

As such my two arguments succeed in showing that the tobacco laws are unjust...

P1: All laws which are beyond the government's position to make are unjust
P2: The tobacco age is beyond the government's potision
C: The tobacco age is unjust


P1: All laws which deny individuals of a good thing without sufficient reasons are unjust
P2: The tobacco age denies an individual of a good thing without sufficient reasons\
C: The tobacco age is unjust

In conclusion, I have refuted my opponent's arguments and the resolution remains unaffirmed. My opponent has essentially two main arguments. First, that it is immoral to use smokeless tobacco. Second, that is it immoral to break a just law, and the tobacco age is a just law. The second argument relies on the first, since it rests upon the idea that ST is very harmful. I've refuted the first one, and in doing so I've refuted both of these arguments. I've also refuted the second argument by way of showing that even if ST is very harmful, it is beyond the government's position and is thus unjust.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GOP 2 years ago
Furthermore, tbhidc also conceded on how addictive nicotine is, and I don't like how he mentioned that mountain dew has caffeine and how caffeine is addictive. This is just a far fetched argument since it would take a lot of mountain dew bottles to experience the negative effects of it. A responsible person wouldn't end up suffering from that, whereas even the most cautious, responsible person (as previously mentioned) can face risks of cancer (which is life threatening unlike some minor caffeine issue) by chewing tobacco in moderation.

Last, but not least, it was extremely counter productive for Con to say that chewing should be allowed to manipulate sexual urges. The thing is that would cause the sperm to be deformed, causing many people to possibly end up having deformed kids. It would also be unrealistic to say that underage chewing should be allowed in the hopes of minimizing unwelcome sexual urges.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Thanks to GOP for taking the time to vote on this debate.
Posted by GOP 2 years ago
First of all, Geogeer did a good job using the Bible in his arguments (which Con did not do). As this is a debate about sinfulness of chewing tobacco and all, that is a very appropriate thing to do. Also, Con made a straw man argument when he made an analogy of wearing blue ribbons and pink ribbons. He says an unjust law like that has no point, which is true. The thing is that not allowing underage kids to chew tobacco has a point, even though Con may think it may not be dangerous to a high extent. And that point is that it's harmful (whether the risks are low or high in Con's view), so that's the point of the law.

As for common good argument that tbhidc made, Geogeer responded by saying, "When a drug like Thalidomide was introduced and numerous children suffered defects (including: deafness, blindness, disfigurement, cleft palate, many other internal disabilities, and of course the disabilities most associated with thalidomide: phocomelia [12]) we can justly expect government to intervene in defence of the common good." Here, he implies that the law is indeed for the common good.

As for the potato chips and the hockey arguments, tbhidc committed the straw man fallacies again because those two things aren't INHERENTLY dangerous. It's the irresponsibility of overeating chips and not playing the sport properly that lead to negative health effects, whereas the very act of chewing tobacco (no matter how careful or "responsible") can elicit dangers to one's body.
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago
exactly. If it can't be converted into a simple straightforward syllogism, then your reasoning process is haywire. It's just nice though, when the person who presents the argument though, presents it in a valid reasoning process... cuz with lots of arguments you have to read between the lines to see what the reasoning process even is! :P
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
In reality I don't believe in convoluted arguments. If you cannot distill your argument down to something simple and straight forward, then you're either arguing about something you don't understand, or you're arguing about the wrong thing.

You know you have the correct solution to a complex problem when you can distill it down to something straight forward.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Sure, sure...
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago
oh whoops. I meant when I said your argument was simple that is was straightforward, and easy to understand.. not that it was easily refutable, lol :P
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago
let the wisconsinites chew on chew, and not chew on you.
Posted by tbhidc 2 years ago
nah bro.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
it's stupid for anybody to use chewing tobacco
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GOP 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: See comments