I must side with Didascalo and his argument. Protopiro stated that architecture serves a purpose of sheltering and protecting people, but I believe it goes beyond that. Tracing back to the beginning of architecture history in 30 BC, Vitruvius stated in his famous writings that the trifecta of architecture is stability, utility, and beauty. Architecture lies beyond a building—beauty plays an important role in encompassing its true essence. Didascolo supports the idea of buildings having ornamentation, while Protopiro thinks it is an abuse of architecture. I believe the duty of architecture, much like art and history, is to reflect the culture of the time-period, and that occurs through detailing. By building what satisfies the public, the architecture becomes a historical and cultural piece.