Ancient vs Modern: Isn't it stupid to think who is better?

Instructions by Teacher
Sem 1:
Reference: Dryden's Essay.
Point of Debate: Ancient vs Modern.

  Read attached writeup from Chitralekha magazine.
Isn't it true that such writings which narrowly focuses on "Who is better?" conditions our mind to think of "comparison"  always in terms of 'good and bad?. Isn't it true that such conditioning narrows our thinking? We are unable to restore connection between the past and the present when we see things as antithesis to each other.  We always think that one should be better than the Other. The idea of mutual coexistence ceases to exist in our mind and thus we fail to coexist with difference.

        The writer would have read Dryden's Essay to understand an important point to keep in mind while we "compare".
"Discussion of Ancient and Modern shud not be for who is better, it shud be more filename tally about how "history" itself functioned and shud be read, thus it shud be about the relationship between past ans present, humanity and nature, and human understanding and knowledge."

   What is your opinion about this two viewpoint?
It would be good if you support your argument with personal or general real life experiences.
Sem 3 students should participate along with sem 1 in this online discussion.

My Answer:

      The concept of comparing present and past can help us to get new ideas but it should not be compared to get the results that which one is best. Both are equally important on their place because both are necessary to make future.

    The connection between present and past always helps the reader to understand the work and the situations around.

Thank you.