The Instigator
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
STALIN
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Was destroying the Death Star necessary?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
STALIN
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2014 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 48957
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Ozzyhead

Con

Why did the Rebels have to destroy the Death Star? Was that necessary?
STALIN

Pro

Destroying the Death Star was vital to defeat the empire. The Death Star could destroy planets and therefore had to be destroyed at all costs.
Debate Round No. 1
Ozzyhead

Con

Taking over the Death Star would of been a better option. It could of been a useful asset for the rebel mission. Not only that, destroying the Death Star could have killed innocent prisoners. Remember, Princess Leia was once a prisoner, but there could have been more. Was the loss worth the gain? And why was blowing it up an unfinished Death Star a good idea? Wouldn't just destroying the mechanism that destroyed planets be good enough?
STALIN

Pro

"Taking over the Death Star would of been a better option."

How could you possibly take over the death star? It has thousands of troops on it. Its the size of a small planet. My opponent will need to show that the Rebels actually had the capacity to take the Death Star.

"And why was blowing it up an unfinished Death Star a good idea?"

The unfinished Death Star could still destroy huge ships. Either the rebels had to blow it up or lose the war.

"Wouldn't just destroying the mechanism that destroyed planets be good enough?"

How could the rebels possibly do this? And lets not forget that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller weapons on the Death Star.
Debate Round No. 2
Ozzyhead

Con

Why not negotiate peace? Or just live under the ruling of the Dark Side? Was sending so many people off to die worth it? There could of been peaceful ways to go about it. And if the Rebels have the ability to blow up the thing, taking it over would have been possible. The Rebels could have also relocated themselves. But destroying the Death Star? Even when the emperor died and Darth Vader practically turned to the good side? If it's because of communication, than I have a lot of problems. A man was on the thing set to blow up, your own man, and you go ahead and blow it up anyways hoping that he made it out. Doesn't sound like a smart move
STALIN

Pro

"Why not negotiate peace?"

That would have been impossible.

"Or just live under the ruling of the Dark Side?"

That would not have been an option. The Dark Side would have killed the rebels for rebelling.

"Was sending so many people off to die worth it?"

Yes it was.

"Even when the emperor died and Darth Vader practically turned to the good side? "

Vader died shortly after turning.

Conclusion:

My opponent has simply been asking me questions. I have shown that it was very important for the rebels to destroy the Death Star since the Death Star could destroy planets. Without destroying the Death Star, the rebels would not have won.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
OzzyheadSTALINTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro logic works better than con logic. To simplify: It is easier to blow up a bridge with a missile than it is to capture and hold it with men. The Death Star was an immediate threat that had to be dealt with. There was no other way.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
OzzyheadSTALINTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments. Pro's also correct that the bulk of con's arguments consist of questions, and not arguments.