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

I will first deal with the health risks associated with chewing tobacco, since lots of this debate rests heavily on it.Health risksAddictionFirst 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 symptomsMy 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 diseaseMy 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 immoralP2: ST causes heart disease to X degreeC: ST is immoral to useHowever, 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 effectsOnce 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 lossAnd 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(iii)Diabetes(iv) Damage to immune system(v)Metabolic syndrome(vi)Dangerous mercury poisonsand 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.SexualityOnce 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 rebuttalsJust lawsMy 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 BibleMy 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 unjustMy 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 unjustP2: The tobacco age is beyond the government's potisionC: The tobacco age is unjustandP1: All laws which deny individuals of a good thing without sufficient reasons are unjustP2: The tobacco age denies an individual of a good thing without sufficient reasons\C: The tobacco age is unjustConclusionIn 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.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.aarp.org...[3]http://www.mercola.com...[4]http://www.webmd.com...