Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Pentagon deconstruction

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 03:16, 28 August 2011 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 03:17, 28 August 2011 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(Does it makes any sense that that building still stands?)
Next diff →
Line 22: Line 22:
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
-===Does it makes any sense that that building still stands?===+===Prolonged existence of the building is insane===
|- |-

Revision as of 03:17, 28 August 2011

This house believes that the Pentagon building should be deconstructed

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Prolonged existence of the building is insane

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? Many of the key strategic decisions today are made in wide consensus, by a web of interconnected minds. Actually it is strategically more sane to have a dispersed network than one central hub.
  • Pentagon obviously failed in protecting the US from the attacks of 9/11.

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.


Con

  • Some people might miss it. Some people may have connections to that building, and it would probably hit them hard if it was no more.

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.


Explosive demolition as a mean of Pentagon deconstruction

Pro

  • Fast.
  • Cheap.
  • Workplaces for demolition workers. The cleanup would create jobs for demolition workers.


Con

  • Noisy.
  • Dusty.


References

See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.