Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Pentagon deconstruction

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 02:35, 28 August 2011 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(Debate: Pentagon demolition moved to Debate: Pentagon deconstruction: blah blah)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 02:48, 28 August 2011 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 62: Line 62:
 +
 +|-
 +|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +
 +===Aircrafts kamikadzing as a mean of Pentagon demolition===
 +
 +|-
 +|WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
 +====Pro====
 +*'''Way how to get rid of obsolete airplanes.''' Currently, there are lots of 'planes graveyards' around the country. When a plane would just hit the Pentagon at the end of its service life (remotely operated - or possibly occupied by volunteers).. why not.
 +|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|
 +
 +====Con====
 +*'''Too noisy, possibility of mishit.''' The building stands in the middle of inhabited area, so it's obviously not a good idea to undertake such a pyrotechnic action, as fancy as it may seem. The dangers are just too high.
 +
 +
 +|-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Pro" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"|

Revision as of 02:48, 28 August 2011

This house believes that the Pentagon building should be deconstructed

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Does it makes any sense that that building still stands?

Pro

  • Berlin wall, a prominent symbols of cold war, has been torn down. Pentagon stands to this day.
  • No strategic significance. Pentagon shapes are the best (according to military theory) to defend. But c'mon, when there would be a battlefield in D.C., it would be the end of the world (as we know it) anyway, so what sense does it make to have a fortress in the middle of a city?




Con

  • The building's long corridors creates lots of workplaces for janitors.




Pros/cons of the actual demolition

Pro

  • The site would make a nice place for a park.
  • Building material source. The bricks or just pieces of wall could be reused for reconstruction of countries destroyed by questionable decision made there, much as the beams of Twin Towers were remelted and shaped into warships.



Aircrafts kamikadzing as a mean of Pentagon demolition

Pro

  • Way how to get rid of obsolete airplanes. Currently, there are lots of 'planes graveyards' around the country. When a plane would just hit the Pentagon at the end of its service life (remotely operated - or possibly occupied by volunteers).. why not.

Con

  • Too noisy, possibility of mishit. The building stands in the middle of inhabited area, so it's obviously not a good idea to undertake such a pyrotechnic action, as fancy as it may seem. The dangers are just too high.


Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Pro

Click "edit" and write arguments here





Con

Click "edit" and write arguments here





References

See also

Debate: Twin Towers reconstruction

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.