We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Old buildings do not fit in with new ones.
Having old buildings next to skyscrapers can ruin the aesthetic. When you see the contrast between the two, the old building has the potential to look ugly.
2. Old buildings don't have an architectural advantage over new buildings.
Many times, new buildings are built bigger and safer than old ones.
3. Sometimes the space is needed.
Say the city centre is filled with old buildings. Would it be unreasonable to tear a few down to build a park or a fire department?
All over the world many buildings are preserved in their authentic appearances. Furthermore, many of them have unique constructions and are really beautiful and impressive. In my opinion, the destruction of such remarkable pieces of architecture and their replacement with modern buildings can be called 'barbarity'. Therefore, a lot of old buildings belonging to the historical heritage of the world are protected by UNESCO.
It is a fact that cities, which have their old, historic buildings, are favorite places for holiday and tourism. The reason is that these cities keep their special atmosphere and could offer us a magnificent journey through their cultural and architectural history.
Nowadays people more impressed by old architecture than modern one. For example, if the Great Wall and Tiananmen Square are not in China, would there be as many as thousand of foreign visitors coming there just to taste the dim-sum and listen to Chinese? If Paris doesn"t have the Eiffel Tower, would there be even more traveling couples coming to this romantic city? I doubted.
Your argument could also work against you. For example, what about the buildings torn down or the ground that was blocked to build these buildings you are defending? I could say that these buildings destroyed the culture of the area when they were built. The point is that culture can change, and that we should not be afraid of said change.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Neither debater was able to convince me in their arguments to vote in one way or the other, or use sources to prove their claims. In my opinion, this debate is a tie, but since Con had better spelling and grammar, he gets the "win".
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.