The Twin Towers destroyed in the 9/11 Attacks should be rebuilt

"It is true that while they were standing the Twin Towers were not considered by many to be great architecture. In my personal opinion, the buildings are beautiful. Whether or not the towers are "pretty" is a matter of PURE OPINION and has no factual basis in this debate. " I disagree on two accounts. First, my opponent is proposing something that will cost taxpayer dollars, and thus, we should take mainstream beliefs into account. Second, my opponent would have us believe that he has been arguing nothing but facts. If the audience would kindly examine his first round, it can be noted that over half of his arguments are nothing but guesswork and attempts at psychoanalysis, from his symbolic yet PERSONAL interpretations of what it means to be resilient, to his sentimental, yet opinionated assertion as to what demonstrates "psychologically moving on". And in this response, he makes claims such as "By Building "1 World Trade Center" we kind of assert that we have forgotten. At least, that is what I believe. " Are we supposed to take his opinions as fact whereas mine are to be dismissed? Now, let us examine his counter arguments against my proposal. First of all, his claim that they would not fit is ludicrous, as we could simply make it one large building and design it accordingly. Each finger does not have to be the same size as the original WTC building. Furthermore, his only other rebuttal is that I am proposing the construction of the exact same tower. This is just an illustration that my opponent has not read my argument in full. I repeat: "I propose that we take the ******modern day designs of the freedom tower*******, and structure it together with a few more towers into this shape:" The general shape would be that illustrated in the link. The design and architecture would reflect the modern style freedom tower. *********************************************** However, my opponent has stated that he wishes this debate to be ground on factuality, and thus, I will comply. Apparently, this is a serious topic to my opponent and he may not appreciate my playing around with opinions and personal beliefs. As such, I will attack his position seriously in order to respect his wishes. If we are limiting our discussion to the facts, then I will retract my proposal and instead directly debate that the Freedom Tower is a better alternative than rebuilding the trade towers as they were 9 years ago. Why? Because construction of the Freedom Tower has been approved and has been going on for quite some time. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... A direct contradiction of my opponent's assertion that "It has been "somewhat agreed" that the new building to be built at Ground Zero will be "Freedom Tower" or "1 World Trade Center". " In that case, my argument against my opponent's proposal would be that the construction has already been approved and is a good percentage of the way there. The building is supposed to be completed by 2012. . http://en.wikipedia.org... If we accept my opponent's proposal, we will have to tear down the entire foundation, along with a good portion of the lower frame, and go through the entire process from scratch, starting with the design of my opponent's proposed towers. What kind of message will this send to the world then? I look forward to my opponent's response.