In class we have debated over whether monuments should continue to be made or not. My group was for monuments continuing to be made. Our adversaries had a good start into their argument but sort of lost the question they were supposed to be answering towards the end of the argument. They argued that monuments should be commemorated with a space rather than with a physical piece. However, they lost their sense of position because whether the monument is a space in the ground like the 9/1 memorial or a statue, it is still a monument just a different style. One of the biggest challenges of this activity was having someone speak at once and organize the debate. I had never been a part of a debate before, so I enjoyed being quick on my feet to counter-argue points think quickly but thoroughly about what I am going to say. If I had a choice I would’ve still been a part of the for monuments group. I think the way we erect monuments and what we choose to represent is what could use some updating. When erecting a monument a lot of things need to be taken into consideration such as the place, the thing being commemorated and why it is important. Once there is a clear and strong vision I do believe monuments are worth being made commemorate people or moments from history.
