The Instigator
SylviaS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ozzie
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Clothing companies should sell a greater number of wool sweaters

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2017 Category: Fashion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 98736
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

SylviaS

Pro

Wool in one of the warmest fibers produced in nature, and its use for clothing should be increased. Companies currently produce a much larger number of sweaters made of fibers that are made of synthetic fibers such as polyester, acrylic, and lycra, as opposed to wool. Using wool for the clothing companies sell would increase the amount of warmth and quality of the clothes.
I would like to clarify that wool refers to the hair of an animal, e. g. sheep wool, alpaca, camel hair, etc.
Production of clothes out of warmer fibers would reduce a great deal the amount of heat used to heat houses in colder temperatures. This would decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel, lessening, at least in part, the Global Warming Temperatures. In the face of Climate Change occurring at such a rapid rate, everything possible should be done to stop, or at least decrease its severity.(2) The production of warmer garments could cause a potential decrease in emissions which would be very important in this possible dire situation(3).
Also, it simply makes sense to use fiber for clothing which is provided in abundance in nature. Synthetic fibers, for example, polyester, are made out of petroleum gas from which are extracted things such as alcohol and constituent acids. This would require much more of resources than the manufacture of wool, and it would therefore make more sense to use mainly wool for sweater garments. The use of power and resources to produce synthetic fibers such as polyester would also be having a great impact on the environment, in which case it would make more sense again to use the fiber which is grown on the backs of animals, whether with human interference or not. Currently, about 75% of sweaters sold by clothing companies are made out of synthetic fibers or fibers which are not wool. Manufacturing more clothing out of natural fibers such as wool would increase the quality, warmth, and wearability of clothing a great deal.

Sources
(1)http://www.skepticalscience.com...
(2)http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...
(3)www.whatispolyester.com/manufacturing.html
(4)http://www1.macys.com...
Ozzie

Con

Good choice of topic. I look forward to an interesting debate.
Before I bring out my arguments, I must rebut the affirmative's first points.
The underlying theme of their argument seems to revolve around global warming. Everyone knows that human industry produces CO2 which goes up into the atmosphere and warms the planet. Synthetics are completely man-made, and wool comes from nature. Obviously wool is much better for the environment, right? Wrong. Wool production isn't as glamorous as it sounds. The process to raise, feed and shear a drove is exhaustive and heavily reliant on thirsty industrial tech. As such, 1kg of wool (on one average Australian farm) has a carbon footprint of 24.9kg, compared to polyester's relatively minute 9.52kg. So, using more wool would come at the cost of adding much more CO2 into the atmosphere.
My oponent also mentioned wearing wool would 'reduce a great deal the amount of heat used to heat houses'. By that I assume they mean wearing woollen clothes would make heating unnecessary, and global warming would slow down. This is, again, baseless. Yes, wool is a little bit worse at conducting heat compared to polyester, but how the clothing is designed and made affects the insular properties of a garment far more profoundly than the fibre used. My ski jacket is made from polyester, and it is by far warmer than a woollen jumper (our word for sweater, I think) and a woollen jumper is warmer than an acrylic t-shirt. My point is, synthetics can be just as warm as wool, and saying people use CO2 producing heating because shops don't provide woollen clothes isn't correct. Their climate change argument is invalid.
The affirmative briefly mentioned wool brings better quality and 'wearability' without providing any arguments or evidence to back up their claims. I will rebut anyway- as with my previous point, the quality of a garment isn't up to the material, but the design and method of manufacture. Sure, men's suits and my school blazer are made from wool and would probably be thought of as quality items, but in my wardrobe I can see a few clothes made from polyester (and more from cotton) from brands like Nike, tommy hillfigger and adidas that may also be considered quality items (depending on what you think of as quality).
I have no idea what wearability means in this context, so for it to be a valid point we need a definition (and, of course, a proper argument).
Before I start my own points there are a few factual inaccuracies in the affirmative's argument which I don't want to be used against me, so just to be on the safe side I will rebut them as well.
'Companies currently produce a much larger number of sweaters made of fibers that are made of synthetic fibers such as polyester, acrylic, and lycra, as opposed to wool' and 'about 75% of sweaters sold by clothing companies are made out of synthetic fibers'. Not according to http://www.statcrunch.com...;. That website's figures put synthetics at just over 20% of clothing material used, with cotton and wool making up approx. 45% and 35% respectively.

'it simply makes sense to use fiber for clothing which is provided in abundance in nature'. Sheep (as the only wool-bearing animal that is economical) are domesticated animals, and don't just wander around wild ready for man to come and collect wool. They have to be bred, bought, fed, and nurtured. There is also a decent amount of time you have to wait before shearing a sheep again, and sheep don't last forever. The process is resource intensive, just like polyester.

Now to my first point. The topic of this debate is 'Clothing companies should sell a greater number of wool sweaters'. I believe the key word in this statement is 'should'. The Oxford Dictionary defines should: 'Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions'. So, if the affirmative is correct it is a bussiness's duty or obligation to make it's product out of a specific material for, in reality, no good reason. Even if wool was better for global warming (which I believe my rebuttals prove isn't true) a business's only duty is to make benifit (generally money) for it's stakeholders, all within the bounds of the law. It isn't right to force a business into doing something with no purpose, and, as my next argument will show, stifle competition, affordability and empoyment.
Sources in comments
Debate Round No. 1
SylviaS

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I look forward to having an interesting one.
My opponent stated that synthetics can be as warm in garments as wool. They stated that the warmth of a garment lies mostly in the structure of the garment than the fiber it is made out of. However, wool can certainly be warmer than synthetic fibers. I have a sweater which I am never cold in when I wear it inside, and it is made of wool. Fiber which comes from an animal which has spent its life in a very cold climate, e. g. Icelandic sheep would be much warmer than fiber which is derived from oils you would never eat. My opponent mentioned that the wool sweater/jumper they wear is not as warm as their ski jacket which is made from polyester, but a coat is a lot thicker than a sweater, and if the material used to make that ski coat were used to make a jumper of the same design, it would very likely not be nearly as warm as the jumper made of wool. My ski coat is also warmer than my sweater, but the synthetic fabric is stuffed with goose down, and I if there were none it would probably be freezing. I highly doubt the ski coat my opponent was talking about was made of only a layer of synthetic fabric. Therefore, wool can certainly be warmer than synthetics, and it could very well decrease climate change due to fewer resources being used to heat houses.
My opponent was correct in stating that I had not provided evidence for wool sweaters being of higher quality and wear ability than clothes made of synthetic fibers in the previous round, however, I will certainly do so in this round. By higher quality, and wear ability, I meant items that last long, which can be worn for a long time and in multiple conditions before they are considered unable to be worn. I have sweaters I wear outside that do not tear or get very mussed when they come in contact with bushes. When I wore my ski coat out outside it tore right away when it came in contact with a thorny bush. I had a coat of wool I wore for years that would not tear if I walked by a rose bush. In this way wool garments, including sweaters/jumpers are much less subject to wear than garments made of synthetic fibers.
My opponent also mentioned that it takes far more energy and produces more CO2 emissions to manufacture wool than synthetic fibers. However, if people were to wear sweaters out of wool, which has more wear ability than synthetic fibers, then there would be less need to produce so many garments, because the garments produced would last longer. Also, garments made out of synthetics mostly tend to get dirty very easily, where wool clothes, when you look closely at them, have small fibers sticking out of the cloth. When some liquid gets on the cloth, the fibers lift them off the rest of the cloth, until enough liquid is poured on that the cloth soaks in some of it. In this way, clothes My dog's hair gets wet when he swims, however, when you lift his hair, about and inch underneath is dry. If clothes were made out of fiber like this, they would be somewhat less prone to getting dirty, which means that less washing would be required,=less resources needed=fewer resources produced=less human impact.
My opponent said that sheep do not walk around everywhere, waiting to be shorn, in fact, there is a whole entire process to getting wool off their backs. First of all, certainly sheep do not walk around everywhere, waiting to be shorn, however the process of raising them and feeding them, etc. does not require half the resources than, for example, polyester requires, 1) getting to the place where the petroleum gas is located, often in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, 2) extracting the alcohol and constituent acids, 3) the travel associated with both getting to the place where the materials for polyester can be extracted and then back to the manufacturer. The process of raising sheep requires some, although much less traveling. Although sheep certainly do not walk around everywhere waiting to be shorn, one sheep can be shorn every year, even twice, unlike with a polyester material source, it runs out, no fabric. Also, wool does not only come from sheep, it can be gotten from many other animals. Mohair can be gotten from any goat, including a mountain goat. Besides, the hair on sheep is practically useless for anything but fiber. Petroleum, which is used for polyester, has many other uses, such as for gasoline and paving roads.(1) When it is used for polyester it cannot be also used for those things. This makes use of wool much more practical.
My opponent also said that manufacturing of sheep wool requires highly industrial technology. Humans have been using sheep for wool for approximately the past 500 years. One of the oldest samples of wool in Iceland was found in the 1500's in Iceland.(2) Does my opponent mean to say that that 500 years ago people used highly industrial technology to raise sheep and gather their wool? People 500 years ago, first of all, did not have the global warming problem that we have now. Second of all, they certainly did not have the synthetic fibers that we have today.
The link to the source my opponent provided for natural fibers such as wool being produced more than synthetics was broken. I had to play around with the link to get it open. I request that my opponent does not put in their debate any broken links to sources they have used. The source summarizes the fiber most often used for fabric, where this debate is about the type of fiber used in sweaters. It also stated that about 75 percent of clothes are made from COTTON and wool. Cotton, although a natural fiber, is not a wool. It comes from a plant, not come the hair of an animal. This debate is about whether companies should sell a greater number of WOOL sweaters, not another fiber. If the types of fabric covered in the chart cover sweaters in part, the sweaters may very well come from stores which I have never heard of, there are very likely fewer of those sweaters than those from stores I have heard of.
My opponent also mentioned that in the title of this debate I stated that it was the company's obligation to provide clothing of a certain fiber. By stating that clothing companies "should" do something, I merely meant that it would be a good idea due to its potential benefits.
Increasing the number of wool sweaters sold will I think be a good idea because:
It would decease emissions in part due to the warmth of wool,
Wool has a higher wear ability and water tolerance than synthetics,
Efficiency in the production of wool, considering that sheep and some other animal hair has few other uses, as opposed to materials used to make synthetics.

Sources
(1)http://www.petroleum.co.uk...
(2)JoL9;nsdoL9;ttir, VeL9;diL9;s. Knitting with Icelandic Wool. New York, NY: St. Martin's Griffin, 2013. Print.
Ozzie

Con

The affirmative has either taken little time to read my arguments or completely failed to look past their own. I stated both the quality and warmth of a garment is not determined by the material it is composed of, but how the designer/manufacture has gone about making it. I made an example that my ski jacket is warmer than a woollen jacket, but it could be the other way round. The point I was trying to make was wool can be warmer than polyester and vice versa. Pro has countered this example by ignoring exactly what I said and saying wool will always be warmer than polyester. Clothes aren't always designed to be as warm as possible (especially not where I come from), so suggesting polyester has limitations in terms of warmth is ridiculious. If you need warm clothes, you can buy sufficiently warm garments made from wool, polyester and a variety of other fibres, synthetic and natural. Wearing wool can be warm enough to go without heating, same with polyester. Also, Pro has essentially accused me of lying about what my ski jacket is made of. I would love to attach a photo of the label if they would like (please ask in the comments)
Another misinformed point my opponent has made is that the collection of wool requires more resources than wool, because, for starters, you have to travel all the way to the Saudi Arabia or somewhere. Perhaps they doesn't realise that Saudi Arabia is a real-life country with real-life humans living and working in it, in a domestic workforce heavily dependant on the oil industry one way or another. People don't need to travel there to extract oil, as there is already a population of 30 million ready to work in oil themselves (obviously not all of them but you get what I mean). Also, who cares if polyester is more resource intensive? It's obviously cheaper, and as my sources prove, emits less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In case the affirmative doesn't know, carbon footprint takes into account EVERYTHING that was required to produce the goods. Even the scary sciency words like 'constituent acids'. The production of polyester puts less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Pro also seems to think woollen clothing is more durable than synthetics. Wrong. Woollen sweaters have a very low density and thread count compared to synthetics. Synthetics are essentially plastic (everyone's favourite durable material) and are scientifically designed and not a product of nature designed for a different use, so I don't know where their getting their facts from. Plus, most adults (the primary clothing market) don't frolic around in the bushes getting 'mussed' (idk what on earth that means but google says it's North American slang) and dirty. Yes, wool can repel moisture, but synthetics, being synthetic, are very basic and smooth when you look through a microscope (https://www.reddit.com...) (please excuse the expletive in that URL) so there's no-where for dirt and moisture to get caught on. And, on an average day your average adult wakes up, goes to work, comes home, watches telly and goes to bed. No heavy duty clothing is required in that process (not that wool is any more 'wearable' that synthetics but y'know). Those facts also undermine my opponents argument that clothes made of wool need to be purchased less frequently than synthetic ones.
Again, there's plenty more facts my opponent has gotten completely wrong. I'll address them briefly:

(Just to be clear) NOT ALL CLOTHES ARE DESIGNED TO BE AS WARM AS POSSIBLE, SO THE FACT THAT SOME CLOTHES MADE FROM WOOL ARE WARMER DOESNT MEAN WOOL IS A BETTER MATERIAL TO MAKE WARM CLOTHES OUT OF. POLYESTER CAN BE WARM, SO CAN WOOL. CLOTHES WARM ENOUGH TO WEAR WITHOUT HEATING MADE FROM BOTH MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE TO BUY!!! THE INTENTION AND DESIGN OF THE GARMENT DETERMINES HOW WARM THE MANUFACTURER WILL MAKE IT!!! READ MY ARGUMENTS!!! PLEASE!!!! SORRY IF I WASNT CLEAR!!! Also, if you grab a sheet of raw wool and a sheet of plain polyester of equal thickness wool isn't that much warmer. I can't find the source that had the info but when I do I'll put it on the comments.
"My opponent also said that manufacturing of sheep wool requires highly industrial technology. Humans have been using sheep for wool for approximately the past 500 years. One of the oldest samples of wool in Iceland was found in the 1500's in Iceland.(2) Does my opponent mean to say that that 500 years ago people used highly industrial technology to raise sheep and gather their wool?" No, your opponent means to say to provide clothing for the masses (there are 7 billion people in the world, remember) a great deal of industrial technology is needed. Sure, you can shear a sheep with a pare of clippers, but that wool might clothe two people. For the remaining 7 billion you need a lot of sheep and a productive means to look after them. Hence the 24.9kg of CO2 emissions.
"Also, wool does not only come from sheep, it can be gotten from many other animals. Mohair can be gotten from any goat, including a mountain goat." Firstly, using mountain goats to produce wool on a commercial scale is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. Just why? Secondly, for whatever reason farming goats hasn't been succesfull, otherwise I would have CLOTHES made from goat fleece. For an idea to succeed in outbreaks capitalist society it has to be economically viable. Businesses selling Eco-friendly alpaca mohair mountain goat Icelandic wool sweaters will fail and no significant portion of the population will wear their stuff.
"The source summarizes the fiber most often used for fabric, where this debate is about the type of fiber used in sweaters. It also stated that about 75 percent of clothes are made from COTTON and wool. Cotton, although a natural fiber, is not a wool. It comes from a plant, not come the hair of an animal. This debate is about whether companies should sell a greater number of WOOL sweaters, not another fiber. If the types of fabric covered in the chart cover sweaters in part, the sweaters may very well come from stores which I have never heard of, there are very likely fewer of those sweaters than those from stores I have heard of." Pro overestimates the importance and popularity of the sweater, a tacky and irrelevant garment from yesteryear. I assumed this debate was about using wool for garments in general but pro seems very fixated on an extremely narrow topic. The way I've been debating is wool vs. synthetics for a clothing material. Of course all sweaters are made from wool, it's pretty much part of the definition of a sweater. For this debate to be relevant or in any way meaningful I think we should continue the 'wool vs. synthetic' style. It has the same effect but in a much better context. Also, I cited that link (sorry it didn't work i don't know a thing about computers) because Pro said "75% of sweaters are made from synthetic" and I misread that as garments. Also, if my opponent could cite a source that says that, it would be very much appreciated.

To summarise my rebuttals by rebutting my opponent's summary of their arguments (i think)
"It would decease emissions in part due to the warmth of wool," No, it would increase emissions and the fact that wool is warmer than synthetic doesn't mean woollen clothes will eliminate the need for heating. That idea is unfounded.
"Wool has a higher wear ability [sic] and water tolerance than synthetics" No it doesn't, also they haven't provided any sources for this claim (or any of their other ones)

Unfortunately I'm about hit my character limit, so my argument will have to wait for now.
In their usual manner my opponent has listed two completely irrelevant sources that don't support any of her assertions at all. Would it be possible to cite some more relevant information that supports your case next time?
Sorry if my rebuttals were a bit offensive at times. I don't mean anything personally.
Debate Round No. 2
SylviaS

Pro

I will begin by refuting my opponents later points. My opponent requested that the topic be changed to wool versus synthetic fibers, due to the supposed "unpopularity" and of the sweater and it being old-fashioned. First of all, I do not completely agree with the sweater being an outdated garment. Plenty of sweaters are sold in stores, and although most of them are made of fibers that are not wool, they are still worn rather frequently. I do not think that the definition of a sweater includes that it is made of wool. The website I used to determine relatively how many of the sweaters sold are made of fiber that is not wool, had sweaters which included garments of acrylic, polyester, cotton, and other non-wool fibers. The source I used to determine the amount of sweaters produced which are made of wool was the fourth source in round one. This is the link again: http://www1.macys.com... Unfortunately, I am not able to access that source anymore, my computer decided to block sources I pulled up for this topic. It also blocked this source before I was able to read through most of it, but I was able to see quite a bit before it stopped working. My opponent also said that the sources I provided were not relevant, however, my opponent can look at where I cited them and completely disregard them, however, they may not ask me for where I got that information from.
My opponent also said that the warmth of a garment lies in the structure of the garment more than it does the fiber. They gave their ski coat being warmer than a sweater as an example. Once again, this debate is about SWEATERS, not coats. They also said I accused them of lying about what their ski jacket was made out of, I did not intend to say that they were lying, I intended to suggest that there were probably other materials used besides polyester in the jacket. They also said that clothes were not always made to be warm, however, the Sweater was a garment that was originally designed for warmth. I have no idea where my opponent comes from but, while there are sweaters which are designed to be rather light, most sweaters are designed to be warm.
My opponent stated that wool production is more resource intensive than the production of polyester. They stated that there are people in Saudi Arabia ready to work, so the oil can be extracted there, but who is going to get the oil to other countries where the constituent acids will be derived or the acids to other countries after they are derived in the countries where the oil was produced in? Transportation requires resources and produces emissions. True, wool manufacturing also requires transportation and those resources, but that is barely anything compared to having to travel across oceans to get fiber rather than within your country. Sheep are able to live in many more places than oil is located, or where it can be extracted. There are places where sheep cannot live, but in many of them there are other animals which can, for example, yaks and goats. My opponent also said that wool requires highly industrial technology to cloth 7 billion people, however, so would polyester or any other synthetic fiber, so wool and synthetics are even on that point. It is true that gathering wool from a mountain goat would be impractical from an industrial standpoint, however, that would not be an example of an industry not having to use highly industrial technology but an example of being able to gather wool from non-domesticated animals.
My opponent stated that it does not matter if polyester is more resource intensive. However, cheaper clothing in the case of synthetics often means that the clothing does not last as long. Having to buy many of the same type of garment requires more money than buying one that will last longer. My opponent said that wool has a lower density and, therefore, less wear ability than synthetics. However, cotton or wool tights last longer than synthetic ones. I have a pair that if I wore for more than a week would probably be completely torn. However, this debate is about sweaters, so I will stick to the topic. My opponent said that adults do not frolic around in the bushes, however, quite often people walk in the woods or by trees. My ski jacket was torn when walking in the woods, when a branch was caught in it. Wool is more durable than synthetics in most cases. This will eliminate having to produce so many garments since those produced would last longer, which means less resources and emissions.
The statement that wool cannot be gathered from goats is incorrect. Mohair, a relatively common fiber, can be gathered from most goats. Cashmere, another commonly used fiber, is also gathered from goats, Cashmere goats. Farming goats has indeed been successful, otherwise these garments and fibers would not exist.
There is a great deal of efficiency in producing more wool than synthetic sweaters, they are warmer, although my opponent has not yet provided a clear claim as to why they would not be. They are also indeed more durable and long lasting than synthetics, eliminating the need to buy so many garments. My opponent said that selling "alpaca mohair mountain goat Icelandic wool sweaters" will not succeed. I have no idea where they got that fiber from. Some of those exist as separate fibers and are sometimes blended together but they do not exist as a fiber.
Wearing more durable and warmer clothing will decrease the need for heating, although not completely eliminate it. Warmer clothing does mean less heating is needed, and that does mean that there will be fewer resources needed to heat places and buildings. My opponent also seems to think that the resources used producing polyester do not matter, but more resources mean greater CO2 emissions. There is wool which, based on its warmth and durability will require fewer resources. Having to produce fewer garments means fewer resources are used on them, decreasing emissions. There were reasons provided as to why wool is more durable and water repellent, in both this round and the previous one, my opponent only had to read them.
My opponent requested to change the topic to wool vs. synthetics in clothing. All sweaters are not necessarily made from wool, I am not sure where my opponent got that from. This topic is narrow, but not so extremely narrow as my opponent seems to think it is. If my opponent further objects to debating whether a greater number of wool sweaters should be sold, we can discuss it comments because it is not worth spending debate rounds on it. Otherwise the topic stays as it is.
My opponent said that as usual I cited two completely irrelevant sources. First of all, they have only known me from the first round, so I do not know where they got what is usual from. Second of all, I will refrain from putting in links to some of my sources, and my opponent may not ask where I got the information from or state that I did not provide sources for the evidence from my claims.
Ozzie

Con

First if all I'd like to appologise for getting the definition of sweaters wrong. I thought sweaters were exclusively those ugly loosely-knitted jumpers people give to each other for Christmas as jokes. I withdraw the argument about sweaters being obsolete.
This debate is getting a bit petty so hopefully we can get some facts straight in this round. My oponent seems to have brought up very interesting assertions from goodness knows where and again, completely failied to comprehend my perspective.
"They gave their ski coat being warmer than a sweater as an example. Once again, this debate is about SWEATERS, not coats." Since I don't really wear any sweaters (unless a hoodie is a sweater, idk) I gave one example of polyester being warmer than wool. Perhaps pro doesn't understand what an example is, but I was trying to prove a concept. The fact is, my point on warmth being a product of design, intention and manufacture still stands, and whether that is true or not Pro has failed to rebut it. "They also said I accused them of lying about what their ski jacket was made out of, I did not intend to say that they were lying, I intended to suggest that there were probably other materials used besides polyester in the jacket." Pro suggests I was wrong but hasn't asked for any proof (which I was happy to provide). The label says 100% polyester, and labels don't lie.
"They also said that clothes were not always made to be warm, however, the Sweater was a garment that was originally designed for warmth. I have no idea where my opponent comes from but, while there are sweaters which are designed to be rather light, most sweaters are designed to be warm." What I was trying to articulate was a sweater won't be designed to be the warmest sweater in the world, so it's irrational to say a polyester sweater isn't capable of keeping people warm enough to go without heating is unreasonable.
"My opponent stated that wool production is more resource intensive..." up until "...There are places where sheep cannot live, but in many of them there are other animals which can, for example, yaks and goats." Proof Pro hasn't read my argument, the sources I cited measured the carbon footprint of oil and wool, and wool produced more CO2 emissions. Carbon footprint is the measure the emissions of all resources and factors in producing a product (yes, that includes transport). This means wool definitively puts more CO2 in the atmosphere, full stop. I'm not saying making polyester is less resource intensive, but the resources used to make polyester emit less CO2. Also, in our capitalist society if using more resources doesnt come at an environmental cost, the only consequence is more jobs, growth and a better economy for everyone.
"My opponent said that selling "alpaca mohair mountain goat Icelandic wool sweaters" will not succeed. I have no idea where they got that fiber from. Some of those exist as separate fibers and are sometimes blended together but they do not exist as a fiber." I meant this as joke, to highlight how ludicrous using such exotic materials to affordable clothe the masses. All of those materials are too expensive to make affordable clothes out of, otherwise department stores would be full of the stuff.
And re: the durability point, Pro has not provided a single source citing this (or any) argument, and to a reasonable person the suggestion is clearly meritless. Plastic is durable. Everyone knows that. And synthetics have been purposely designed by man to be durable and suitable for clothing.
"My opponent said that as usual I cited two completely irrelevant sources. First of all, they have only known me from the first round, so I do not know where they got what is usual from. Second of all, I will refrain from putting in links to some of my sources, and my opponent may not ask where I got the information from or state that I did not provide sources for the evidence from my claims." I got the usual from seeing over two rounds not a single source that actually supports any assertions. And why on earth are they withholding sources and not letting me question their ridiculous claims? Perhaps Pro is new to debating, but debating is meant to see who's facts stand up against who's. Providing links to reputable information makes a case much more believable.
I regret this debate has become a bit of a factless shouting match, which is a shame. Also it's been interesting to see the phrase 'my opponent' used 42 times between us, which might be a DDO record. I hope it has been a learning experience for my opponent because it certainly has been for me (mainly that I'm not as good as I thought I was). Hopefully this debate gets some votes and we can see who's arguments people believe.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ozzie 1 year ago
Ozzie
Round One Sources (not sure why it didn't post before, sorry 😟
https://www.researchgate.net... (Study showing a kg of wool has a carbon footprint of 24.9kg)
https://www.google.com.au... (Source saying 1kg of wool has a carbon footprint if 9.52kg)
Posted by SylviaS 1 year ago
SylviaS
I apologize for the confusing spelling of my second source. When I entered the round it turned out like that. It should say: Jonsdottir, Vedis, Knitting with Icelandic Wool, etc.
No votes have been placed for this debate.