The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

We ought to reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 229 times Debate No: 105462
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The 7 Wonders used to be a magnificient, greatly adored structure. However, they were all destroyed, except the Pyramids of Giza, either by barbarians or natural disasters, with the Mausoleum falling in 1404. Thus, to rediscover the glorious ancient world and its civilizations, we ought to do the best we can to restore the pyramids to its original condition, and reconstruct the 7 Wonders the best we can.


I'm glad you appreciate history, sir, and understand its significance in the modern world. However, you must understand that it would simply be impractical to reconstruct the seven wonders of the ancient world. They are long gone, they have been gone for countless millennia. Some were even built before the birth of Christ. Sure, they're beautiful, but they would be very expensive and require massive labor.

Keep in mind, sir, that the 7 wonders of the world were not "a magnificent, greatly adored structure." Rather, they were SEVEN magnificent, greatly adored structures, each in a completely different region of the world, each with different aesthetic values and different types of technology. True, the pyramids of Giza are the only wonder still standing, but they're nice to behold, even if all the rest are gone. You have to let things happen. I mean, sure, we can build scale replicas, but trying to reconstruct the actual 7 wonders of the world would be an almost impossible feat.

First off, I think the most challenging wonder to reconstruct would bee the hanging gardens of Babylon. The Middle East is a war torn area, so it's doubtful that they would allow us to put up a structure there, and the hanging gardens, while in their prime, used irrigation technology that we can't fathom. It's a lost artifact from another time.

Then, of course, there's the Colossus of Rhodes, which stands a whopping distance, and is made from some kind of metal or something. It stood on between two cliffs. I don't think he'll ever come back. I mean, for gosh sakes, we have the statue of liberty. What else do we need?

You act as if these wonders are still there, but they were turned into rubble a long time ago, and the countries around them have changed. I think that it's doubtful we'll ever see them again, and if we do, it will be for no reason.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, you see, we should restore the Pyramids. We can build the new Hanging Gardens somewhere in the United States, build the Colossus at Rhodes in Greece. After all, this will put many Greek people to work. Greece is already in a high unemployment rate, of 21%, which is over 1 in 5 able-bodied adults. Also, the Statue of Zeus, there's the Lincoln Memorial, so I guess that's okay for now. Also, we've got the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, the temple of Ephesus, and the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Those all should be built in the United States.

I see that the Middle East is dilapidated, so we shouldn't try to build anything there for another millenium, I believe.

Either way, rebuilding/restoring the 7 Wonders will put many unemployed people to work. Furthermore, it will help people be more aware about the past of humanity.

Currently, the United States is the best place to build the 6 of 7 Wonders (excluding the Pyramids.)

Good luck!


No, no. You've got it all wrong. If the seven wonders of the world are built somewhere else from where they originally were, the whole thing is ruined. It's won't even be the same artifact, it'll just be a cheap replica. Really, why even put in the effort? Modern architecture is just as good. We've put out some stunning architecture. Look at the Burj Khalifa. Do you think the Romans could have built that? Hell no. The pyramids aren't even that tall. I mean, you say we should restore the pyramids? They're mostly intact.

First, it seemed like you really wanted to reconstruct these things. Now it just seems like you want to build them all here in the United States, which would ruin everything about them. They're not a part of American culture, they're a part of Roman or Grecian culture, and it would be a grave injustice to build them in a spot where they're not even appreciated by the people who originally built them.

You're not talking about restoring the real wonders, you're talking about a corny theme park where they can be gawked at like monkeys in a zoo. While rebuilding these things is unnecessary, putting them in the wrong place is an even more grave injustice. Of course the United States is the best place to build them, we're a first world country, but that just shows what jerks we Americans are, to assimilate their culture into ours. I mean, it's the Lighthouse of ALEXANDRIA, not the lighthouse of NEW YORK. We should at least construct them in their proper places, or there's no point to making them again.

And you're comparing the Lincoln memorial to the statue of Zeus? One is of a guy with a beard, the other is of an all powerful deity. You can't pass up the statue of Zeus just because we have the Lincoln Memorial. I mean, why would we build a statue of Zeus here in America? We don't worship him. Hell, even modern Greeks don't worship him. He's a god from another time, and he's been replaced by Christianity. Really, that's like building a bunch of Scientology temples here. It just isn't necessary.

Furthermore, many of the ancient wonders were built for purposes that are now outdated. As I said, we don't worship Zeus anymore, so building a temple of him is worthless. The hanging gardens were built to add beauty to a lifeless desert, but today we have much better irrigation techniques. The Lighthouse of Alexandria was built to help ships at sea, but today, even our flashlights can shine for miles. The things are outdated, so if they were rebuilt, they couldn't be put to practical use, they'd just be put in a museum of relics. And that's a waste of time, effort, and materials.

In addition, many of them use technology which we can't figure out. We don't know how the lighthouse was built, we don't know how the hanging gardens raised water vertically, and we don't know what Zeus was made out of. Building a completely accurate model of these things would be like painting the face of God. We just don't know that much about them. The Greeks and Romans were very smart with their aqueducts and lyres, true, but much of their knowledge has been lost to the ages.

You claim that it will help unemployment in Greece. OK, but do the Greeks really want to build a corny theme park that makes a mockery of their heritage just so the American tourists can visit it? Really, I'm sure there are much more practical ways to solve Greece's economic crisis that aren't degrading. There should be more real jobs, not just jobs at a crazy novelty theme park. They have to work and polish the Colossus of Rhodes for us. that's like asking some Native Americans to pick up all the rocks from their land so we can plow over it with cement. Just horrible.

You say it will help people be more aware about the past of humanity. I have to ask, can't you study these things if you wanted to devote your life to them? They're not that obscure, we have pictures of them, and I'm sure many people have tried to write and talk about them. We don't need to make all of them again. Ancient Rome is never going to be revived, so why try to rebuild a vanished dream? Part of the fun of these things is their mystery, and the treasures that could lurk within them. If we build real ones, it will ruin everything about them.

Also, do we have to reconstruct history just to make people aware of history? Shouldn't we focus more on just having them learn it? Do we have to make it fun, like a theme park with all 7 wonders of the world? Education is cool even without cheesy gimmicks.

And you say we have to wait a whole millennium till we build anything in the Middle East. There's another time when your argument makes no sense. A millennium is one thousand years. By then, we'll be dead, and future civilizations will have a goofy theme park with the Statue of Liberty in it. Think about that.

Overall, it's a very dumb idea.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes. The Middle East is war torn, so we cannot build anything there for now. However, we can get some land, about as big as a national park, and build the 7 Wonders (excluding the Pyramids, Colossus or Statue of Zeus) there. The 4 Wonders are the Hanging Garden, Lighthouse, Temple of Diana, and the Mausoleum. We will work on building those 4 wonders in the United States. Our ideal destination is currently Joplin, Missouri or Atlanta, Georgia. People sure can read history books or watch documentaries, but the best way to learn about history is to visit the actual relics or ruins. Reconstructing the 7 Wonders is the best way to achieve knowledge of ancient history.

The Colossus of Rhodes can be rebuilt over Greece and Turkey in Istanbul.

However, I here acknowledge that this is a risky and costly project. However, it will surely put many unemployed people to work.


Oh, dear God, you're insane. You don't want to reconstruct the actual wonders of the world, you just want to make tacky replicas. You shouldn't do that here, either you go all the way or not at all. Either we make them completely accurate, in the right spots, or we leave things as they are.

The debate was called "reconstructing the SEVEN wonders of the ancient world". Not just 4 of them. Nobody would just want to see four. They'd want to see all seven. And why the hell do you exclude the ones you did- the pyramids, colossus or statue of Zeus? I get excluding the pyramids, since they already exist, but the Colossus and the statue of Zeus are the coolest. They're big statue people. I mean, what could be cooler than that? There's no point in excluding them.

I also think the ones you chose to reconstruct might present some problems. For one, the hanging gardens, as I said before, use technology we don't know about, and we certainly don't know their layout or which plants were used. There could be plants used in them that are now extinct, and since we can't get those plants, the model would be inaccurate. The lighthouse, again, uses light technology we're not sure about, and it would be a waste of time to build a lighthouse if it doesn't even guide ships to the coast. the temple of Diana, again, is meant to worship a god that is no longer worshiped, and as for the mausoleum, well, there would have to be dead people in there, or it would be inaccurate.

You also seem to think that this would be easy. It would not be easy. The lighthouse, according to scholars, was 130 meters tall. That's about a third or so of the Empire State building. All the other ones were colossal too. they were built for grand purposes, so they were huge for their times. You'd have to get tons of marble, tons of cement, tons of whatever else went into them, and assemble them perfectly. I mean, there's almost nothing known about these things. Building them perfectly would be very hard. We'd really have to scan the books.

And you say the Colossus of Rhodes can be built over Istanbul? Again, that's not where it was, it was at RHODES. I doubt the people of Istanbul will want a statue from a completely different place cluttering up their city.

And why do you say that the ideal locations are Joplin or Atlanta? You act as if you've already talked to their city councils. And why are they more ideal than other places? Explain this to me. I mean, if I live in, say, Chicago, and I can't afford to go to Atlanta, then what's the point of building them there? I mean, they're the coolest things ever, so if people can't afford to travel, they'll really miss out. People in foreign countries, like, say, GREECE, WHERE THE FREAKING THINGS WERE BUILT IN THE FIRST PLACE, won't be able to look at this great history. That would suck.

You say that people can read history books or watch documentaries but "he best way to learn about history is to visit the actual ruins or relics". OK, but you're not talking about the actual ruins or relics here, you're talking about building them AS THEY WERE BACK THEN. I mean, what's better, reading about the real 7 wonders of the world, or visiting some fake ones? The real ruins, the genuine article, are all gone by now, and only daring adventurers would go into a remaining crawl space or something that's left. These would not be the real 7 wonders, they just couldn't be. You're trying to repair something that just isn't worth repairing.

You say it'll fix unemployment. This is just one tacky theme park, it won't save the million American homeless people from starving. Aren't there better ways to fix unemployment?

If we could build them back, piece by piece, with exact accuracy, in the exact places where they were built, and have them perform the exact same functions, then it would be worth it. Otherwise, it would be like trying to revitalize an old candy bar but putting different ingredients in it, or rebooting a TV show but having a worse plot. It ruins the nostalgia, the intrigue, and the wonder that came from these things a long time ago. Better to let them rest.
Debate Round No. 3


No, you've got it all wrong. It's so sad how the 7 Wonders all collapsed, we've got to reconstruct it. Such work will help people get jobs and decrease the unemployment rate.

Also, it will help people gain a deeper understanding of history.

There. I said it. You don't need to dilly dally.


I thought we were done with this debate. I hoped we were. Now we gotta go through another round. Oh well.

It's not sad that the 7 wonders all collapsed. I mean, it is sad, but they didn't collapse because of a volcano exploding or something, they collapsed because things change over the course of history, and sometimes we have to accept that. Everything will collapse at some point. the Empire state building will collapse, the Burj Khalifa will collapse, even the Rocky Mountains will collapse. But it doesn't really matter, because future generations will study, them, and we will have enjoyed them while they existed, and that's all that really matters. We don't need to rebuild them, we know a lot about them, but the little things we don't know prevent us from gaining a solid understanding of them, and that's fine, because their mystery is what intrigues us. They're amazing things from an amazing time.

Your main argument here, it seems, is that rebuilding the 7 wonders will decrease the unemployment rate. But you must understand that Ancient Egyptian and Greek economics are very different from modern economics. First off, people will have jobs when the wonders are being built, but it will only take about three thousand or so people to build them, and there will still be a million or so people who aren't getting any jobs. Also, when the ancient wonders are completed, the workers won't have jobs anymore. That's a big drawback. They'll have worked for nothing, once the mausoleum is all finished, they'll have to go down to the unemployment office.

You also have to understand that many of these ancient wonders were built by slaves, which was what made them so easily assembled, management didn't have to pay their labor anything. In modern society, we don't have slaves, so paying all these workers would empty the national treasury in a flash. Also, technology has improved so much that we could build these things in about a week. It won't even be that hard. The pyramids are much shorter than a modern skyscraper, you have to understand that we've advanced since ancient times and architectural styles and equipment have too.

In the image, the pyramids are number one, the Empire State Building is number four, and the Burj Khalifa is number 7. As you can see, the pyramids are at the very bottom end of small buildings.

We don't need to rebuild the 7 ancient wonders of the world to have people gain a deeper understanding of history, because there are plenty of documents and drawings of them, and there are museums nationwide with small, highly accurate scale depictions. Really, if everybody needs a visual representation of something to learn about it, then we're very moronic. We can read, we have eyes.

Instead of focusing on the majestic structures of yesteryear, we could try to build cooler structures today. What about the chunnel, a train tunnel that runs beneath the English Channel? What about the bizarre geometric shape of the Denver Art Museum? What about tiny mountain shacks in remote forest areas? What about the Panama Canal, a man made river connecting two oceans? These are architectural wonders too, but we rarely think of them as such because we take them for granted. Instead of focusing on our past, we should look towards the future.

The 7 wonders of the world, although being called that, are not the only artifacts from ancient civilizations. Many structures, just as old, just as large, just as fascinating, were never recorded as ancient wonders, and yet they remain perfectly intact. What about the Great Wall of China? What about the Colosseum? Or St. Peter's basilica? Or the Sistine chapel? Or Machu Picchu? Or Teotihuacan? they're all amazing representations of the ingenuity of mankind, and they should be regarded as equals to the ones known as the seven wonders of the world.

I'm not dilly dallying, as you put it, sir. I'm giving you a solid argument. I suggest you do the same, instead of simply repeating yourself, or you're going to lose. Give me at least 6,000 characters next time and you could come out as victor. But I doubt it. You've said almost nothing.

I await your next argument.
Debate Round No. 4


Now a team of young European architects has concocted an immodest proposal to resurrect a supersized 21st-century version of the original statue, considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The team behind the Colossus of Rhodes Project developed the idea in the aftermath of Greece"s ongoing economic crisis as a way "to make Rhodes a new point of reference for the whole world, to follow a new path and find a solution to the issues that caused such a big sorrow to thousands of people, forced to flee abroad," they write in a mission statement.

They aren"t seeking to copy the original, they say, but to create jobs to help prop up the faltering Greek economy and national spirit with a 500-foot-tall sustainable structure covered in solar panels and built to withstand earthquakes. If constructed, it would also serve as a cultural center, library, exhibition hall, and a lighthouse.

They argue that the project, which they estimate would cost up to $283 million, a sum they believe could be raised by private investments or international crowdfunding, would create jobs and revenue once built by attracting visitors that would lengthen Rhodes" tourist season.

So is the answer to Greece"s image problem and economic woes a gleaming monstrosity that looks like something from a Game of Thrones set, with all the chest-thumping subtlety of a Trump tower or a Stalin monument? Issues of taste aside, once a great wonder of the world has been lost, it seems like a fool"s errand to think that it can"or should"ever truly be resurrected.


Wow, the last argument. OK, here we go. I think I can last through it.

Through this debate, I've gotten pretty bored, but I'll humor you, just so we can get this thing over with.

Your round 5 argument is the most deeply flawed one I've seen yet, because first you talk about a project to rebuild the Colossus of Rhodes and provide a source which supports your argument, then, in the last paragraph, you apparently go nuts and talk about what a horrible mistake the reconstruction of the Colossus would be. I mean, you've got to pick a side here. Do you want it rebuilt, or don't you?

This last round, here, is where I can conclude that you don't know what the heck you're talking about, you don't understand anything about the 7 wonders of the world, and you don't know fleas about international economics or history at all for that matter. You contradict yourself, you continually repeat the same points over and over, and I, for one, am tired of this travesty.

I think that they should not be rebuilt, they're gone, and there are much more interesting things to build, and they would be far too expensive, and require massive amounts of labor, and it would be impossible to build an exact replica because lots of knowledge about them has been lost through the ages. There we go. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.