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.
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?
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.