The Instigator
NinoK
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bossyburrito
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
bossyburrito
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2012 Category: Arts
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,440 times Debate No: 26649
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

NinoK

Pro

Nowadays it became one of the most debateble thing. Most of the people consider that there is no need in old buildings, that they should be replaced by new, more modernized buildings. But old buildings reflect the history of each city, and to destroy them means to damage everything that our ancestors tried to preserve for us
bossyburrito

Con

Gl;Hf
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?
Debate Round No. 1
NinoK

Pro

Every culture has its special features. Buildings, as symbol of architectural heritage, are an important part of the history of any country or city. Moreover, they could help us find the answers of many questions about the historical development of our society. Therefore, I truly believe that every city-administration should try to preserve the old, historic buildings.
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.
bossyburrito

Con

I do not see why preserving the history of an area through old buildings is necessary. You can preserve that history through record-keeping and videos. Also, I believe that a building such as the Burj Khalifa are more impressive than, say, an old flat.
Debate Round No. 2
NinoK

Pro

But if all old buildings were damaged and replaced by new, modern skyscrapers, the cities would lose their individuality. Moreover, the historic buildings are the symbol of the city. Without them, a city will become meaningless as if it has no history. The culture of the city would be gone. In other word, the city does not have its proud cultural background anymore. There is no more history to tell, it would not be as educational as before.
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.
bossyburrito

Con

I believe that individuality can be maintained through modern architecture. Since we have advanced planning and building technology, we can easily make unique buildings.
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.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by musiclover12 4 years ago
musiclover12
agreed, old buildings are apart of history and our past
they also preserve a memory an ex: the alamo where 180 Texans died for Texas Independence.If we were to knock down the Alamo we would basically be knocking down an important part of Texas history where men died trying to honor us. Resolved:We should preserve old buildings instead of damaging them
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 4 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
NinoKbossyburritoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
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".