Clothing companies should sell a greater number of wool sweaters

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