Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Pentagon deconstruction

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

This house believes that the Pentagon building should be deconstructed

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Prolonged existence of the building is insane

[Add New]

Pro

  • Berlin wall, a prominent symbol 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.
[Add New]

Con

  • Janitor heaven. The building's long corridors creates lots of workplaces for janitors.
  • It's a decent building after all. Why demolition again? Just move out the generals, move in anything else. You're all set. Janitor's heaven saved along the way.
  • The building could serve well as a library. OK we have Internet, but it's a decent building, well crafted. Long corridors very well suited for bookshelves. Why not fill it with literature? 'It's too connected with wars' - well just think four-dimensionally. Reagan had a good reason why he liked that movie.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pros/cons of the actual demolition

[Add New]

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.


[Add New]

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.
[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Aircrafts kamikadzing as a mean of Pentagon demolition

[Add New]

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.
[Add New]

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.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Explosive demolition as a mean of Pentagon deconstruction

[Add New]

Pro

  • Faster than saying blueberry pancake (the actual explosion at least).
  • Cheap.
  • Workplaces for demolition workers. The cleanup would create jobs for demolition workers.
  • Possibility of a nice national event. When televised, with special dedicated holiday - nice opportunity to skip school.
  • Nice firework. 4th of July is known for its fireworks - Thanksgivings not very much so - why not spice one up.
[Add New]

Con

  • Noisy. Some people don't like noise.
  • Dusty.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Brick-by-brick deconstruction

[Add New]

Pro

  • Lots of workplaces would the cleanup create.
  • Clean. When done properly.
  • Quiet. When done properly.


[Add New]

Con

  • Longer time than explosive demolition would it take.
  • Expensive. When the participating people would have to be paid, it would cost a noticeable amount of money.


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Direct public involved deconstruction

[Add New]

Pro

  • Positive happening. There is at least one person (User:Renergy) who would happily participate in such an action.
  • Truly capitalistic. In communist regime, when it neared it's end, there were so called "Z-actions" used for construction of things. So in capitalism, it is natural to have an - call it - "A-action" for the deconstruction. It also makes a good alternative to fitness/jogging/such kind of activity.


[Add New]

Con

  • No jobs created.


References

See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.