The Instigator
anandsuresh619
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should cultural treasures be returned to their country of origin?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,072 times Debate No: 19026
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

anandsuresh619

Con

I think that Cultural Treasures should not be returned to their country of origin because it is useless to do so and useful if it is given to scholars for further studies and for the museums so that all the people around the world can view it. And at the same time it should be Protected in a Safer Environment. As pollution nowadays increase we can never assure the possibility that these treasure will remain the same in their country of origin !
imabench

Pro

I believe that cultural treasures should be returned to their country of origin.

1) If we agree that they are cultural "treasures" then we could assume that they are of much greater value than cultural "artifacts" which means that the cultural treasures in question would be historical phenomenons such as the Rosetta Stone, the Head of Queen Nefertiti, the Terracotta Soldiers, etc.

If these are historical and cultural treasures, then they represent a very important, meaningful, and historical history of a nation that may by thousands of years old, and they are being denied these treasures because archaeologists from different countries found them, repossessed them, and took them back to their own distant countries and have never been returned....

2) "..... and useful if it is given to scholars....." Scholars have the technology and funding to travel around the world to investigate cultural treasures that may or may not be in their countries of origin. I saw the Rosetta Stone while in London and for a few hundred dollars more I could easily have seen it in a Museum in Cairo Egypt. If an 18 year old like me can study (or in my case simply admire) an artifact halfway across the world then surely the well respected and well funded scholars could do the same.

3) "....at the same time it should be Protected in a Safer Environment" The old museums of Europe are often converted castles that are lacking in security because it was too expensive or difficult to tunnel through the stone walls the museum was built out of just to install security to keep artifacts safe. Often it is the younger more modern museums that keep artifacts safer because they are built with the most up to date security to prevent the theft or vandalism of any culturally historical treasures

4) " As pollution nowadays increase we can never assure the possibility that these treasure will remain the same in their country of origin!" I fail to see how pollution poses any threat on the safety and security of cultural treasures

To summarize, cultural treasures should be returned to their country of origin because
1) As cultural treasures they represent great meaning and history of that country
2) Such cultural treasures were not simply given away, they were found by foreigners who then TOOK the treasures to their distant countries
3) The treasures could still be studied by scholars and archaeologists
4) Newer museums are more secure and safe for cultural treasures then the old hollowed out castles converted into museums in Europe
Debate Round No. 1
anandsuresh619

Con

In the Case of The Treasures that are made up of Silver, Sulphur Dioxide can cause great damage to them. Likewise Different Factors Affect the Existence of those treasures.Therefore Pollution Plays a Very important Role in the Existence of a Particular Treasure. The Humidity in Africa is the main reason for the Damage of its Cultural Treasures. As Africa has no much resources to ensure that they are secure ,I think Then Its a Better Option to Be displayed in a Controlled Environment.

The Treasures should be Transferred to Newer Museums which has more security and I think that is not a point to debate on because that is surely done when they find the Old Castles are Being Destroyed!

It is not always clear how treasures were acquired (illegally or otherwise), making it impossible to determine a basis for their return to a country of origin: Although some art treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous.

When Treasures of a particular country are only viewed in that country it results in the decline of popular understanding of the civilization or the culture.

Should You Go to Egypt to Know about its Culture and Tradition? Obviously not! So Its Better If their Treasures are not always in their Country of Origin.
imabench

Pro

Sulfur Dioxide (spelled with an 'F' not a 'PH') causes silver to tarnish, it doesnt cause it to melt so if a silver cultural treasure was blatantly exposed to huge amounts of Sulfur Dioxide then it would tarnish and look old, but it wouldnt be destroyed. Also there may be one or two cultural treasures out there made only out of silver so that still wouldnt be much of a problem.

"The Treasures should be Transferred to Newer Museums which has more security and I think that is not a point to debate on because that is surely done when they find the Old Castles are Being Destroyed!" The Con just agreed that newer museums in countries of origin would indeed be safer for national treasures then the castle museums of Europe.

"Although some art treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous."
There are many sources telling about how King Tut's body was removed from Egypt, how artifacts at Machu Picchu were smuggled out of the country when Europeans first found the site (for the record those were eventually returned and are safe and on display) The head of Nefertiti and the Rosetta stone were found and quickly removed from the country by excavators who found them. There are many very well known tales of how countries found and took cultural treasures belonging to other countries and have not been returned.

"When Treasures of a particular country are only viewed in that country it results in the decline of popular understanding of the civilization or the culture." That is purely your opinion and I would bet that a 100ft tall statue of Gandhi would really define the country of India if it were built in India and not in say Ecuador. Also the statue of Martin Luther King Jr in Washington DC brings great understanding to the history of race in America since the statue is here and not in Siberian Russia

"Should You Go to Egypt to Know about its Culture and Tradition? Obviously not!" - Again this is nothing more than an opinion by the Con. On another note which do you think would be more enlightening about ancient Egyptian culture, looking at a 4 inch by 5 inch postcard with the Pyramids on them, or actually standing right next to them and all their Grandeur in Egypt??

I think that national treasures should be returned to their country of origin because they would be safer and could be appreciated more.

For the record, Con has not offered a counter argument to scholars not being able to study treasures if relocated back to their native countries......
Debate Round No. 2
anandsuresh619

Con

I Give Up ! :D
imabench

Pro

Vote Pro :D
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lucykins14 1 year ago
lucykins14
Just read this debate through. However, pro made a big statement of saying whenever that is cons opinions, and it is not fact, therefore being invalid. However, in the next paragraph, he then went on to say 'I think that national treasures should be returned to their country of origin because they would be safer and could be appreciated more.' Are the words 'I think' not another way of saying 'in my opinion'? Therefore contradicting himself whilst making his argument invalid.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
anandsuresh619imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave up.
Vote Placed by marcuscato 3 years ago
marcuscato
anandsuresh619imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Sulphur is spelled both ways.Con made incorrect use of capital letters.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 3 years ago
jm_notguilty
anandsuresh619imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
anandsuresh619imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con R3.