Some people think that certain old buildings are more worth preserving than other ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Maintaining historical sites is a controversial topic among societies. Some advocates argue that some specific out-range properties are worth it to preserve in comparison with others. I vehemently agree with

this

assertion due different capabilities that they have and they are part of any civilisation's identity.

To begin

with, there are convenient reasons in order to protect some old sites.

Firstly

, some of them are still available to be used and they should be preserved.

In other words

, they can be used as a museum which attracts tourists from all around the world or they can be the basement of governments.

For instance

, in Iran Sadabad Castle is the prime minister's workplace which is suitable for all political activities.

Secondly

, some of them are inherent parts of society's identity.

consequently

, people do their utmost to protect and save them for their offspring.

Hence

, some old buildings are full of historical stories about human ancestors like the Egyptian pyramids they give us information about Egypt's knowledge at that time.

However

, some may claim that all outrange property should be seen equally because all of them are important for the human race. They say these buildings can help communities to move forward and make life easier for them.

However

,

this

notion was simply overlooked and they did not pay attention to a considerable amount of money that would be burned by governments in order to maintain all of them.

To sum up

, some proponents assume that some old castles are more valuable to protect

in contrast

with others. I strongly agree with

this

notion because of the features of those monuments and being part of societies' identity.