The Great Scrape vs. Antiscrape Debacle

Considering this debate has been going on strong since the 19th century, it is impossible to state which is the best avenue of preservation, Scrape or Antiscrape, as both are founded with equally convincing principles and beliefs. Viollet-Le-Duc was on one extreme and Morris and Ruskin were on the opposite side, similar to a game of tug-of-war. While Le Duc and company were adamant in their beliefs that old and ruined buildings deserved to be in completion, they failed to see a problem with the possible disconnect which would arise with the fate of the intended structure in hands of another ‘artist’ applying their interpretation. I have a hard time accepting this methodology, knowing the thought, meaning and outcome of the building are forever changed from their original concept. To an extent, I agree with the Antiscrapists, a building must not be a lie. Everything ages with time, including structures, monuments,  objects, buildings, etc., but indeed prevention is better than cure, and in this case taking heed from Ruskin in using preventative measures and doing one’s best to properly maintain and manage a structure from time to time is far more beneficial to that structure than a total recreation of a memory. The best thought seems to be a middle ground between the Scrapists and Antiscrapists, taking every project into consideration and seeing where it falls in line.. (Is it completely in ruin? Can it be renovated and aided with minimal interference?  Does it have the problem of being transformed to something completely alien to its original form? )