So, one. You have four minutes. OK, OK. Uh, when you speak. OK, dic respected of system. I'm the first to call. Our point is that historical landmarks should be rebuilt before I begin my point. I'd like to explain the definitions of some keywords so that we can reach agreements on the meaning of the topic. Historical landmarks are significant buildings or structures that hold historical, cultural, or architectural importance. These phrases are often reminders of past events, cultures, or notable figures and contribute to the identity and heritage of the community. Destruction is the act of destroying something or the fact of being destroyed. Rebuild is to build something again that has been damaged or destroyed.

　　Now, let's mark why we should rebuild historical elements that are going to be destroyed in time. Firstly, everyone should have the right and be able to see the historical landmarks with their own eyes. All people should have the right and be able to see the historical code landmarks with their own eyes. So, to get this opportunity to see them, we should rebuild these landmarks. The painted murals in the Dongk Hug Growthts were damaged by foreign merchants who traveled over the murals, and the case was near destruction due to severe weather conditions. If we didn't rebuild the European paintings of the murals, no one would be able to see the stories, the details, the breathtaking colors and details of the murals, and the unparalleled and glorious history of Zh Huang. The loss of our culture and historical treasure would never be regained. Secondly, these historical landmarks are near destruction, which means they will disappear in time, and we can't just let that happen. We need to take actions to preserve the inheritance of culture. We need to rebuild and keep as much as possible the original parts of the landmarks. The Cord Job Medicine King Temple was rebuilt in recent years because it was damaged by the flood. To make up for the loss, the government rebuilt the temple. If this problem is preserved, the precious historical and religious values of the temple will be maintained. Finally, building historical landmarks has vital influences culturally and historically. Rebuilding a historical landmark destroyed due to reasons of war has significant meanings for people who have come through the war. It is absolutely beneficial for both the landmark itself and the process of healing post-traumatic stress. For example, the rebuilding of a historical landmark in a certain country. It was the largest sandstone building in the world, utilizing unprecedented architectural methods such as rounders faults and sandstone patric. It is one of the most representative Baroque style buildings and is one of the symbols of the city. It was destroyed during World War II and was an eternal pain for the people. In 1994, with 43 percent of the building materials taken from the ruins and restored to the original location, the rebuild of this landmark created a sense of return. It made the people believe that this loss can be undone. The acknowledgement of loss allows it to be seen and accepted as trauma. The people can only pretend it never occurred and forget the loss. But the fact that they rebuild it replaces the loss and makes people believe as if it has resurrected, which is absolutely vital and has significant meanings in both cultural and historical contexts.

　　In conclusion, my team has been able to prove that historical landmarks near destruction should be rebuilt. This is the truth because we've been able to show that rebuilding historical landmarks offers the opportunity to see the landmark better with our own eyes. It can avoid a lot of losses. Near-destruction landmarks have vital influences on the aspects of culture and history. Our second speaker will build on my points and further prove that we should rebuild historical landmarks. Thank you for your time. OK, I'm OK. Thank you. If you still have just. You have twenty seconds left now. As some negative has.

　　Trip. To prepare your reptal. （此部分内容语义不明，可能存在错误）嗯，OK，老师现在就是他们 1 分钟以后是反方一辩发言是吧，对。好，开始。Right and let's goto the. （此部分内容语义不明，可能存在错误）

　　Next, if one, you have four minutes to speak. OK. When you speak, okay for the question: Should historical landmarks near destruction be rebuilt? Our answer is absolutely not. First of all, let's talk about the definition of the words in the topic. Firstly, the disruption means the act of destroying something or the fact of being destroyed. This kind of action can not only be caused by human activities, but also by natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. And a landmark is a building or place that is easily recognized and is especially a representation of the region, like the country or city, which is very important for the region. Also, to review something again that has been damaged or majorly destroyed. So, why we think that we shouldn't rebuild historical landmarks near destruction? First of all, rebuilding a historical landmark will compromise the authenticity and historical completeness. The landmarks are not just tourist attractions or buildings; they carry a tangible connection between the present and the past. The reconstructed buildings will become a reflection rather than the real historical landmarks because the key and uniqueness of a historical landmark is its historical value. The historical value of a landmark must have come from the previous generation and present. There are craft materials and cultural backgrounds. And presenting their craft materials and cultural background. How do we build a landmark again with one hundred percent the same technique and material in nowadays is an absolutely impossible task. For the next point, rebuilding historical landmarks is also an unimpressive expression of respect for history. The process of disruption is a history. Moreover, the era after being destroyed has a warning and educational significance. Such as the destruction of the old... (The content seems to be a bit unclear here. It mentions something about the "Romaninian" and "makes us always remember the heart that the other country that bring to China", which is rather confusing and might require further clarification.) Okay, thank you. So, you have a quite a lot of extra time. Let's go to the next.

　　首先，需要提醒的是，作为反方，在正方发言结束后，应进行反驳。除了第一位辩手外，接下来的每个辩手都需如此。由于这是第一次参赛，在此做个小提示。因为辩手结束发言后，每位辩手有一分钟的准备时间。需记住要进行反驳（rebuttal），并且有一分钟时间来准备。一辩的任务是定义并阐述论点，而反驳是二、三辩的职责。因为赛制的打分中，对每位辩手都有这方面的考量。只有正方一辩可以做最后的总结，给所有人关于如何提升的反馈。大家可先自由发挥，有问题再讨论。放轻松。

　　现在是正方二辩，有一分钟准备时间，需要对之前的发言进行反驳。前面的环节已经结束，相关人员不用再说话，后面是正方二辩的环节。

　　老师，我现在是要反驳对方吗？

　　现在是正方二辩，他的一分钟准备时间到了，他需要进行反驳。

　　老师，我现在可以开始吗？好，等一下。

　　So as it mentioned before, you say that we should try up. You said that it can be described by some natural disasters, but it is because of that, we should try our best to reserve it. And if this historical site is right by time but not visited, people have the isolated something and no one will remember them again. But after the re (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) people cannot not only understand and remember the meaning and history with it, but also bring programs and the development of the local economy. It can increase the cultural type of local evil (此处表述不太合理，可能存在错误) and stimulate national conflicts. And also you mentioned that we should not. In the result, it's carry (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) the connection between the park and the is its not iroll dynamicmarks (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误), but we need to know that it is actually revoing (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) it for people to know that it is in the grandmark that are present before. And also relying on your learning and body, but it has not been on repair and it has been renovated.

　　We respond to the first. So the first explained why we should protect historical landmarks and their disestruptions (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) to give opportunities of eating Les for our office. I'll be explain how historical landmarks rebuilding it is an important step letting people to city the port of culturetter (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) and department of the local economy. And first, it can provide an attendible (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) connection between the history and people's visitity. To bird (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) it can provide an angible (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) connection between the history and visit. You can see different landmarks from ancient time and it shows long history and culture at the time. And also, getting me building the structures, history landmark is a lot of guide towards an information centers. It can explain historical and cultural significance of the place, information of who, goods, why events happen. And also more and third, it can promote people's pri (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) on their country and also their sense of identity the community. These landmarks are their symbols of their parties and encourage people to see the importance of their local culture and traditions and also attract tourism. So these cultural awareness can be widely stress (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) for the local economy. It creates a lot of job opportunities for skillful labors such as art tests and artists and more. After agoing (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) their are also workers and schools and also stop needed portism (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) historical circle has most.

　　The workers and products and also stop needed portray them historical as must are the major attraction and reviews historical visitors from far. For example, there is the example of rebuilding the noty (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) which is a reduce a caed (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) in the Paris after the fireer (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) and it's expected to bring more person than before. And on another example of reconstruction of alls of in eleven book (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) that after the rebuilding process, there's a total of five percentction (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) of TDP of the city. And during travel season, the ever daily flow of people at albertlo (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) ten weeks about ten thousands and there's even more in weekends and holiday is data. Some reconstruction of Albert work in level that show that they were building progress provided more than three hundred jobs for workers after rebuilding. There are more than three hundred jobs for workers after rebuilding. There is the creation of more than two thousand long-term jobs. And also, there's an example of reconstruction of the Globe Theater in London which allows the visitors to stand in indicate similar to re ship first pay were first performund (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误). This is people is sense of the certaintic (此处表述不太清晰，可能存在错误) culture of the Elizabeth area.

　　So in addition, we building historical landmarks is supposed the step of letting people see burns of quarter and positive of local economy and person. Thank you.

　　Okay, right on time. Ah, one minute.

　　Next, you have four minutes to speak. I will click when you start speaking.

　　Um, okay. Uh, so first of all, I will actually address the difference. The first argument you have been emphasizing to me is that future generations should have the opportunity to see the original appearance of historical buildings. Then I want to ask, do you mean that the historical landmark that is about to be described as not real history? Which are you think that here you construct history as not a real historical landmark, a highly imitation? What future generations should know about more is the history that has really experienced destruction rather than the history that looks intact but actually is not. In addition, as the UK has increased its GDP due to the reconstruction of a landmark. Has the increase in GDP really been due to the reconstruction of one historical landmark? History should not be used as a tool for national growth because history is unique, and there are many ways to develop the economy.

　　We believe that reconstruction cannot completely record the original appearance. I'll describe my argument in the following two layers. First of all, I hope to reach a consensus with you guys. First, there is a never-ending difference between modern architecture and traditional architecture in terms of concept, materials, structure, and other aspects. The exception of the second historical building has its own meaning and value. Sorry, the reconstruction is not the same as the original construction. The historical landmark that is part of the healthy part of historical landmarks. The sentence about those destroyed historical parts that have been destroyed by Japan in those years has also become a part of Chinese history in our hearts. Obviously, yes. In our online history survey on the websites of reviewing, eighty percent of people believe that they should maintain their original state and properly protect historical buildings, keeping them away from destruction. At the same time, there are many examples in society that have been restored but have not shown the original historical appearance at all. For example, the Summer Palace, which was burned down by the British and French forces, the newly built one on the original site is completely different from the original one. Looking at it, it is still a reconstruction. I believe that the significance of rebuilding historical landmarks is to let more people understand the real history. But historical landmarks may become something worse when they are not linked to the original history. My question is, what is the significance of rebuilding historical landmarks? Moreover, not only the people but also the country firmly opposes the reconstruction of historical landmarks. This shows that we should not rebuild them. According to the laws of the People's Republic of China, only the protection of cultural relics as all immovable cultural relics should be implemented, and they should not be restored on the urgent side. In conclusion, we think that the original historical buildings should not be restored. Thank you. Oh, Buildings should not be restored. Thank you. Thank you. Next.