The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Is "Substantially" measurable by a number?

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: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 66601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The word Substantially represents 2%.


Substantially is not 2 percent. It is 13 because that's the number of letters in the word.
Debate Round No. 1


Substantially requires at least a 2% increase " this is the lowest percentage I could find.
According to Words and Phrases in 1960
'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable." Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from taxation; such expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App.


1960? That's outdated. The new definition is different from 2%.
Debate Round No. 2


No matter the "outdated" factor, it is still the most liable definition seeing as how you have not given a true definition.


Google defines it as "



  1. 1.

    to a great or significant extent.

    "profits grew substantially"

    synonyms: considerably, significantly, to a great/large extent, greatly, markedly,appreciably

    "the cost has fallen substantially"

  2. 2.

    for the most part; essentially.

    "things will remain substantially the same over the next ten years"

    synonyms: largely, for the most part, by and large, on the whole, in the main,mainly, in essence, basically, fundamentally, to all intents and purposes

    "the draft was substantially accepted"

Debate Round No. 3


Okay, however, this debate is about the possibility of the measuring of Substantially. There is no reason in your arguments so far over whether or not it is essentially measurable. It is due to the area of expansion within substantial as Words and Phrases said. Even though it was from 1960, it is still applicable because it shoes the expansion.


How is 2 percent substancial? 2 percent is nothing. Think about 2 percent of one dollar. Two cents? Naw, that's not a lot. But surely, surely, 4 percent is far more substancial and a better definition?
Debate Round No. 4


No matter the amount, the objective of the con is to tell me why substantial is not measurable in numerical standards. Due to the lack of stance provided from the negative's side, this debate is won by me. Thank you.


Unfortunately, things can always be "more" substantial as proven in round 4. 4 percent is more substantial than 2. 8 is more than 4. 16 more than 8, 32 >16, ad infinitum. Thus, substantial could be represented by ALL and ANY numbers, not just A number--not just ONE number as stated in the resolution.
I won, vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Con, why would you accept the debate if you disagree with the definition?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mags2 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the most sense in the rebuttals towards pro