Cones should be left on statues' heads.

Challenge accepted. Pro states that "this debate is about whether cones placed on statues should be left there, or taken away. " And - forgive me for this, for I am but a newbie - I agree in part with his main point, that the cones should remain on the statues. My view clashes with Pro's in one respect. While it is never explicitly stated in his opening statement that Pro wishes for the cones to be left on the heads of statues, it is definitely implied and, indeed, the topic of the debate is "Cones should be left on statues' heads. " So I will argue that the cones should be removed from the heads of the (supposedly humanoid, or at least of animal resemblance) statues and reattached to the crotches of the statues in the style of a penile substitute. I hope that the fact that the cones will have to be temporarily removed qualifies this argument as a valid one and one that is relevant to the question. Pro described the three main advantages of cones on the heads of statues as "educational (value), financial (value) and touristic value. " I believe that placing cones on the heads of statues - in terms of these advantages - is a concept that is simply outclassed by that of attaching those cones to the crotch area of statues. The first advantage, educational value, is implied to be the product of curiosity. However, with my proposal, the curiosity factor would remain and the cone would also provide a good entry point to the world of sex education for children who are old enough. Those children who are truly too young to be educated about sex would usually not enquire about the positioning of the cone and, in the unlikely event of an enquiry by a child who is considered to be too young, the age and relative innocence and gullibility of that child can be used - in conjunction with quick thinking and inventiveness - to give a feasible answer not related to sex. Those who are not too young would ask and should then be introduced to the basics. Thus the cones have an effective 'screening process' that efficiently filters out those too young to learn about sex. For the purposes of this debate, I hope Pro does not spend too much time challenging my beliefs on sex education, but - in short - I believe that people should learn about sex at a young age (before puberty) so that they can accept it and understand their responsibilities before the age of hormones, excitement and challenging norms and values sets in. This subject is, however, meant for a separate debate and I cannot do it justice in a single sentence. The second and third advantages I shall combine for the purpose of convenience. The steady deterioration of the generally accepted definition of the word 'phallic' towards 'anything roughly cylindrical', or just 'long and thin' in modern culture gives the cones a certain aspect of suggestiveness. While there is no guarantee, it would seem that statues depicting nude figures receive a lot of popularity and fame. If the records were carefully studied (assuming, of course, that the records actually existed and if not, that Pro would take my word for it), positive correlation would be found between the fame of a statue and whether or not it depicts a nude figure, with some of the most famous statues in the world being of men and women exposing intimate body parts. . In Pro's argument, it was stated that the cones would bring "financial and touristic value" simply by being attached to the statues. I, meanwhile, strongly believe that attaching the cones to the crotch area would intensify their effect and give a more favourable outcome, in terms of "financial and touristic value. " Therefore, we can see that removing the cones from the heads of statues and reattaching them to the crotch areas is more effective than leaving them on the heads in virtually every way that Pro expressed. Eagerly awaiting your response.