Clothing companies should sell a greater number of wool sweaters

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.