Clothing companies should sell a greater number of wool sweaters

First if all I'd like to appologise for getting the definition of sweaters wrong. I thought sweaters were exclusively those ugly loosely-knitted jumpers people give to each other for Christmas as jokes. I withdraw the argument about sweaters being obsolete. This debate is getting a bit petty so hopefully we can get some facts straight in this round. My oponent seems to have brought up very interesting assertions from goodness knows where and again, completely failied to comprehend my perspective. "They gave their ski coat being warmer than a sweater as an example. Once again, this debate is about SWEATERS, not coats." Since I don't really wear any sweaters (unless a hoodie is a sweater, idk) I gave one example of polyester being warmer than wool. Perhaps pro doesn't understand what an example is, but I was trying to prove a concept. The fact is, my point on warmth being a product of design, intention and manufacture still stands, and whether that is true or not Pro has failed to rebut it. "They also said I accused them of lying about what their ski jacket was made out of, I did not intend to say that they were lying, I intended to suggest that there were probably other materials used besides polyester in the jacket." Pro suggests I was wrong but hasn't asked for any proof (which I was happy to provide). The label says 100% polyester, and labels don't lie."They also said that clothes were not always made to be warm, however, the Sweater was a garment that was originally designed for warmth. I have no idea where my opponent comes from but, while there are sweaters which are designed to be rather light, most sweaters are designed to be warm." What I was trying to articulate was a sweater won't be designed to be the warmest sweater in the world, so it's irrational to say a polyester sweater isn't capable of keeping people warm enough to go without heating is unreasonable."My opponent stated that wool production is more resource intensive..." up until "...There are places where sheep cannot live, but in many of them there are other animals which can, for example, yaks and goats." Proof Pro hasn't read my argument, the sources I cited measured the carbon footprint of oil and wool, and wool produced more CO2 emissions. Carbon footprint is the measure the emissions of all resources and factors in producing a product (yes, that includes transport). This means wool definitively puts more CO2 in the atmosphere, full stop. I'm not saying making polyester is less resource intensive, but the resources used to make polyester emit less CO2. Also, in our capitalist society if using more resources doesnt come at an environmental cost, the only consequence is more jobs, growth and a better economy for everyone. "My opponent said that selling "alpaca mohair mountain goat Icelandic wool sweaters" will not succeed. I have no idea where they got that fiber from. Some of those exist as separate fibers and are sometimes blended together but they do not exist as a fiber." I meant this as joke, to highlight how ludicrous using such exotic materials to affordable clothe the masses. All of those materials are too expensive to make affordable clothes out of, otherwise department stores would be full of the stuff. And re: the durability point, Pro has not provided a single source citing this (or any) argument, and to a reasonable person the suggestion is clearly meritless. Plastic is durable. Everyone knows that. And synthetics have been purposely designed by man to be durable and suitable for clothing. "My opponent said that as usual I cited two completely irrelevant sources. First of all, they have only known me from the first round, so I do not know where they got what is usual from. Second of all, I will refrain from putting in links to some of my sources, and my opponent may not ask where I got the information from or state that I did not provide sources for the evidence from my claims." I got the usual from seeing over two rounds not a single source that actually supports any assertions. And why on earth are they withholding sources and not letting me question their ridiculous claims? Perhaps Pro is new to debating, but debating is meant to see who's facts stand up against who's. Providing links to reputable information makes a case much more believable. I regret this debate has become a bit of a factless shouting match, which is a shame. Also it's been interesting to see the phrase 'my opponent' used 42 times between us, which might be a DDO record. I hope it has been a learning experience for my opponent because it certainly has been for me (mainly that I'm not as good as I thought I was). Hopefully this debate gets some votes and we can see who's arguments people believe.