The Instigator
Republican95
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Twin Towers destroyed in the 9/11 Attacks should be rebuilt

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,645 times Debate No: 9479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Republican95

Pro

On September 11, 2001 our nation suffered a great tragedy. Hijacked airliners bought down two of our country's most impressive buildings: World Trade Center 1 and 2. Now, eight years later, Ground Zero looks much like it did in 2002. Progress must be made.

It has been "somewhat agreed" that the new building to be built at Ground Zero will be "Freedom Tower" or "1 World Trade Center".

This is an artist's rendition of Freedom Tower:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Instead, I am proposing we build buildings similar to these:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The following buildings would:
1) Be aesthetically similar to the Twin Towers, but be built to be stronger and able to resist attack.
2) They would be 25 to 30 stories higher.
3) A 9/11 memorial park wold be in a plaza located between the towers. It would feature a "wall" of the victims name similar to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC.
4) A 9/11 memorial and museum would be located at an observation deck atop one of the towers.
5) On every anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, all office functions of the tower should cease for memorial services and tributes.

This is why I believe we should do this:

a) Why did terrorist attack the World Trade Center? They attacked it because it was an icon of capitalism and freedom. They attacked it because it was a symbol of AMERICA. If the White House was burned, would we not rebuild it? These buildings have a significant part in our national persona and I cannot imagine a New York, or an America, without the Twin Towers.

b) It would show terrorists that we are resilient. It has been 8 years since 9/11 and we have not yet to rebuild. To rebuild what they destroyed would have a psychological effect on Islamic extremists stating that: We are stronger than you and we will rebuild what we destroyed.

c) The "1 World Trade Center" is stupid. By building something new we state that we have "moved on" psychologically. The cry after 9/11 was "We Will Never Forget". Let's keep that promise. If we rebuild the Twin Towers every time we see them we will remember, and we will not forget.

I thank whoever accepts.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

I'm going to cut straight to the point with little introduction or background. I think that my opponent's idea is nice, but impractical and contradictory to his aims. As a resident New Yorker and a witness to the towers falling, I can honestly say that the 9/11 tragedy was a very jarring event. However, I don't know any New Yorker who feels that we should dwell on such matters in an obsessive and negative way. It's not our style. We don't do things that way.

Here are my opponent's suggestions:

1) Be aesthetically similar to the Twin Towers, but be built to be stronger and able to resist attack.

It goes without saying that they should be stronger and able to resist attack, however, why keep them with the same design as they were decades ago? The block design is ugly, to be quite frank, and the outgrowth of a generation that was limited by the restrictions of engineering and architecture. I don't propose we use the freedom tower design exactly, but it would be more aesthetically pleasing than the twin towers.

2) They would be 25 to 30 stories higher.

Why?

3) A 9/11 memorial park wold be in a plaza located between the towers. It would feature a "wall" of the victims name similar to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC.
4) A 9/11 memorial and museum would be located at an observation deck atop one of the towers.
5) On every anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, all office functions of the tower should cease for memorial services and tributes.

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Outsiders and their obsession with 9/11 don't understand the NY mentality. Suck it up, and get on with life. We mourn, and we grieve, but we won't let things keep us down for the rest of our lives. A memorial should be set up, but we can't dedicate the entire plot of land as a memorial. It's impractical.

Here are my opponent's other arguments:

A) WTC was a symbol of capitalism and freedom, thus we should rebuild it.

No. We should not rebuild old and ugly buildings because of nostalgia. We should build new and pretty buildings which will even more overtly assert capitalism and freedom.

B) I'm not arguing that we shouldn't rebuild. We should just build something else.

C) I have no idea what my opponent is getting at. First he says he wants to build the old trade towers. Now, he's aiming to build something new. How is it "moving on" if we just build the same towers, except a bit taller? We want to remember, but we don't want to obsess and cry about it day after day.

This brings me to the proposal as for what to build.

I propose that we take the modern day designs of the freedom tower, and structure it together with a few more towers into this shape:

http://www.mraceman.com...

To me, this represents the New York mentality to the fullest.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Republican95

Pro

I will start by dismantling my opponent's attacks on my claims.

My Opponent: "The block design is ugly, to be quite frank, and the outgrowth of a generation that was limited by the restrictions of engineering and architecture."

It is true that while they were standing the Twin Towers were not considered by many to be great architecture. In my personal opinion, the buildings are beautiful. Whether or not the towers are "pretty" is a matter of PURE OPINION and has no factual basis in this debate.

My Opponent:
"2) They would be 25 to 30 stories higher.

Why?"

Because when Americans do something it always has to be bigger and better than it was last time. It's just how we roll.

My Opponent: "See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Outsiders and their obsession with 9/11 don't understand the NY mentality. Suck it up, and get on with life. We mourn, and we grieve, but we won't let things keep us down for the rest of our lives. A memorial should be set up, but we can't dedicate the entire plot of land as a memorial. It's impractical."

The entire building wouldn't be a memorial. It would still function as an office tower and contain shops and the like. However, a memorial must be built. One of the most tragic events in American history occurred where the towers stood, their should be a memorial their. The Freedom Tower also has plans to have a memorial at ground level as well as at an observation deck. Any building built at Ground Zero is going to be a "memorial".

My Opponent: "I have no idea what my opponent is getting at. First he says he wants to build the old trade towers. Now, he's aiming to build something new. How is it "moving on" if we just build the same towers, except a bit taller? We want to remember, but we don't want to obsess and cry about it day after day."

The towers that I proposed are at least somewhat similar to the WTC. By Building "1 World Trade Center" we kind of assert that we have forgotten. At least, that is what I believe. We don't have to cry about it day after day. To have a replica of the WTC would be cause for celebration, we bought back what the terrorists destroyed. We "defeated" them in a way by constructing a building.

===
My Opponent's Case
===

My Opponent: "I propose that we take the modern day designs of the freedom tower, and structure it together with a few more towers into this shape:

http://www.mraceman.com......

To me, this represents the New York mentality to the fullest."

This has several flaws:

a) The building wouldn't fit.
Ground zero is approximately 830 feet across. By opponent's plan (which consists of the Triplet Towers, and then some), would be at least 832 feet across. It simply wouldn't fit. We'd have to tear down streets and existing buildings to have space for my opponent's plan, the proposed memorials, and just a general plaza area.

b) My opponent defeats one of his own arguments. He claims that the towers are ugly, and now he wants to reconstruct them? Make up your mind already...
Either my opponent has to change his design (which would result in him losing this debate) or admit he was in the wrong about that argument.

That is all for now.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his prompt response.

"It is true that while they were standing the Twin Towers were not considered by many to be great architecture. In my personal opinion, the buildings are beautiful. Whether or not the towers are "pretty" is a matter of PURE OPINION and has no factual basis in this debate."

I disagree on two accounts.

First, my opponent is proposing something that will cost taxpayer dollars, and thus, we should take mainstream beliefs into account.

Second, my opponent would have us believe that he has been arguing nothing but facts. If the audience would kindly examine his first round, it can be noted that over half of his arguments are nothing but guesswork and attempts at psychoanalysis, from his symbolic yet PERSONAL interpretations of what it means to be resilient, to his sentimental, yet opinionated assertion as to what demonstrates "psychologically moving on". And in this response, he makes claims such as "By Building "1 World Trade Center" we kind of assert that we have forgotten. At least, that is what I believe." Are we supposed to take his opinions as fact whereas mine are to be dismissed?

Now, let us examine his counter arguments against my proposal. First of all, his claim that they would not fit is ludicrous, as we could simply make it one large building and design it accordingly. Each finger does not have to be the same size as the original WTC building. Furthermore, his only other rebuttal is that I am proposing the construction of the exact same tower. This is just an illustration that my opponent has not read my argument in full. I repeat:

"I propose that we take the ******modern day designs of the freedom tower*******, and structure it together with a few more towers into this shape:"

The general shape would be that illustrated in the link. The design and architecture would reflect the modern style freedom tower.

***********************************************

However, my opponent has stated that he wishes this debate to be ground on factuality, and thus, I will comply. Apparently, this is a serious topic to my opponent and he may not appreciate my playing around with opinions and personal beliefs. As such, I will attack his position seriously in order to respect his wishes. If we are limiting our discussion to the facts, then I will retract my proposal and instead directly debate that the Freedom Tower is a better alternative than rebuilding the trade towers as they were 9 years ago.

Why? Because construction of the Freedom Tower has been approved and has been going on for quite some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A direct contradiction of my opponent's assertion that "It has been "somewhat agreed" that the new building to be built at Ground Zero will be "Freedom Tower" or "1 World Trade Center"."

In that case, my argument against my opponent's proposal would be that the construction has already been approved and is a good percentage of the way there. The building is supposed to be completed by 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If we accept my opponent's proposal, we will have to tear down the entire foundation, along with a good portion of the lower frame, and go through the entire process from scratch, starting with the design of my opponent's proposed towers. What kind of message will this send to the world then?

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Republican95

Pro

Republican95 forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent has forfeited his last round. All my arguments extend and my opponent has no arguments standing.

Thank you to the audience, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
B/A: Con
Conduct: Con (Pro forfeited a round)
S/G: Tie - no dramatic errors on either side
Arguments: Con
Sources: Tie

Pro's suggestions are nice, but very impractical. I agree with Kleptin entirely about us (NY) moving on. If you don't, dramatic and intense (negative) feelings are to sure to ensue, and we should not underestimate the power of these feelings as it pertains to volatile human beings. I don't want any public policy, public planning or any part of the economy dictated by this heinous act from 8 years ago.

Re-building the towers is practical as the property value in NY (especially downtown!) is through the roof. And mayhaps even a small commemorative memorial would be appropriate. However, we must move forward in general. I agree with Pro to the extent that the towers symbolized SOMETHING (maybe not necessarily capitalism in general), but us moving on is the real way to trump it; to try and create something "bigger and stronger" would only be a futile and expensive endeavor where we'd never really "win."

Additionally, it's time that NY had some better architecture :) I actually watched a whole documentary on the architecture of the Twin Towers alone. It was interesting, but let's face it - the buildings weren't very cute (though certainly a staple in our massive skyline). I like Kleptin's original proposition of what should go there now, but what will actually be going there shall have to suffice :)
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
This is one of those debates in which I'll respond with something absurd, and then defend it to the best of my ability.

I learned this tactic from the master L_M himself. Hopefully it will lead to fun times for all :)
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"a) Why did terrorist attack the World Trade Center? They attacked it because it was an icon of capitalism and freedom."
>> What fantasy world do you live in?

"b) It would show terrorists that we are resilient."
>>> You mean it would show the terrorists that we THINK we are resilient. Clearly we're not, because the wars we're fighting (which they wanted, btw) are clearly showing that we are not resilient at the least, both in "spirit" and in economy.

"c) The "1 World Trade Center" is stupid. By building something new we state that we have "moved on" psychologically. The cry after 9/11 was "We Will Never Forget". Let's keep that promise. If we rebuild the Twin Towers every time we see them we will remember, and we will not forget."
>>> ......................................First you argue that we should do it because we are resilient, and now you argue we should do it because we're not resilient. I posit you have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"Voting Period: The voting period will last indefinitely. "

Fix this to 1 month and I should accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
Republican95KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Republican95KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
Republican95KleptinTied
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