Personal tools

Debate: Pentagon deconstruction

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 02:49, 28 August 2011; Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This house believes that the Pentagon building should be deconstructed


Background and Context of Debate:

Does it makes any sense that that building still stands?


  • 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?


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

Pros/cons of the actual demolition


  • 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


  • 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.


  • 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 Subquestion here...


Click "edit" and write arguments here


Click "edit" and write arguments here


See also

Debate: Twin Towers reconstruction

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits