America should switch to the metric system

As this debate is comes to a close, I will address my opponent's key points before asserting my final argument. Use of Sources Sources are used in persuasive writing to validate claims. By citing sources that are not credible, a blog entry for example, my opponent’s credibility is vicariously challenged because he failed in finding trustworthy authority to validate his claims. When one cites something, he implies that the citation is a credible source of information. If one cites something that is not credible, it negatively impacts his or her credibility as well. Without reliable sources, my opponent’s claims are mere opinions and are not founded upon credible research to support his assertions. Use of examples prove why having two methods causes problems I provided several examples of confusion that could have been avoided if the US were to switch to the metric system exclusively: science, medical industry, transportation, and commerce. As the world becomes reliant on a global economy, switching to the metric system would make trading and selling more efficient and reduce some of the problems that the US has faced in the past due to dual systems. In round two, I stated that using both systems is difficult because it requires extensive mental acrobatics to keep both conversion ratios in one’s mind. As such, it is best for the U. S. to switch to the metric system exclusively. Americans are lazy and stupid I will concede with my opponent that “Americans are lazy”, however, I disagree that this is an effective argument against my claim. There is no dispute that a sudden change will cause adults to retrain their thinking, teachers to change their teaching style, but my opponent is arguing short term consequences whereas my initial assertion was based on long term benefit. Simply stating that Americans are too lazy to learn new skills is inconsistent with technological advancements that Americans have adapted or environmental changes that Americans have made in their daily lives. The internet is a recent phenomenon and users young and old have learned to use it with great success. Similarly, Americans were too lazy to recycle a decade ago but more and more citizens have adapted to recycling programs. Changes are always difficult, but that is not an argument against my proposal. This debate is whether or not America should switch, not whether or not it is easy. My opponent also argued that switching to the metric system will fail because it will not "stick". This debate is not about HOW to switch to the metric system but rather, that the U. S. should. I will reserve the how for future debates. I cannot comment whether or not the new system will “stick” because research is needed on my part to propose a plan that will “stick”. This debate is whether or not America should switch, not whether or not it will be successful. Metric system is better My opponent is correct that that my arguments have been focused on why the metric system is better. After reading the title of this debate “America should switch to the metric system”, I assumed that my duty as the Pro is to explain WHY we should switch. Clearly, my opponent has picked up on the answer: because the metric system is better. Why this is an inadequate explanation, I will never know. I have provided examples of global economy efficiency, mistakes that could be avoided, and the superiority of conversion that allow for easier mental conversions. For these reasons, America should switch to the metric system, because the metric system is “better”. Difficult to learn Learning new skills is difficult at any age, but arguing that a change should not be instigated because of its difficulty is analogous to my opponent claiming that smart phones should not be sold because of its steep learning curve, computers should be kept from the elderly because they won’t know how to use it. There are bound to be individuals who fight the change but in the end, adopting new systems occurs to benefit the future rather than forcing immediate changes. For example, clean air laws are passed for to be in full effect after 10 years after its passage so companies can adapt to changing requirements, typing classes are taught in school even if some children become automotive mechanics. Changing to the metric system would take some time and effort, but the short term inconveniences and learning curve would be of great future benefit. The point is to mitigate any further mishaps due to the imperial system and make the world economy more efficient for future generations by teaching the units of measurement that are used by the rest of the world. My opponent argues that the imperial system is not terribly difficult but that is also true of the metric system. In fact, a conversion ratio of 10 allows for mental calculations whereas a conversation ratio of 12 for the imperial system is a bit more complex. If the imperial system is not complex, why should the complexity of the metric system be a matter of contention for my opponent? If he concedes that one is not difficult, the same holds true for the other and leaves him with little argument that the metric system is to difficult for Americans to adapt to. For the reasons stated above, I strongly support that America should switch to the metric system. A change would benefit future generations and mitigate the problems of a dual system.