The Instigator
TheConservativeSocialist
Pro (for)
The Contender
RedPandaz
Con (against)

We Need to Build a Death Star

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RedPandaz has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 99564
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TheConservativeSocialist

Pro

Welcome to this debate.

Pro - TheConservativeSocialist - shall debate that the United States government should begin research regarding the construction of a Death Star or Death Star-like device. I am not arguing that construction should begin immediately or in the near future; I am simply arguing that the construction of a Death Star or Death-star like device would yield many benefits, thus I affirm that research into said construction should begin.

Con - my opponent - should you choose to accept, shall debate against research into the construction of a Death Star or Death Star-like device.

ROUND 1 - Acceptance Only
ROUND 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
ROUND 3 - Rebuttals (No New Arguments)
ROUND 4 - Rebuttals and Conclusion (No New Arguments)

Good luck to whomever my opponent may be!
RedPandaz

Con

As round 1 is 'Acceptance', I shall state that I accept your challenge. Whereas I do believe that we should put research into becoming a space-faring civilization, I do not believe that an orbital weapon is, at the present, worth the effort to invest our research into.
Debate Round No. 1
TheConservativeSocialist

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I affirm that the United States government should invest in research regarding the construction of a Death Star or a Death Star-like device for the following contentions.

1. Possibility of Hostile Aliens

The possibility of aggressive extraterrestrial life is legitimate. If there are truly superior extraterrestrials with hostile intentions, we are practically defenseless as far as space warfare capabilities. Steven Hawking states that," Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach." [1] He then compares this scenario to instances in human history where a generally technologically superior society comes into contact with a technologically inferior society and proceeds to wipe them out. Take, for examples, the European involvement in Native America and Africa in the 17th to 19th centuries, the Roman invasion of present-day England and massacre of the Druids, the Mongol invasion of Russia, and the raiding of smaller African civilizations during the time of slavery. As further evidence for the hostility of an alien society, Stephanie Papas writes that evolving intelligence and social pressure (as demonstrated on Earth) correlate with evolving aggression. The same may be true for an extraterrestrial race. [2]

As previously mentioned, under our current space capabilities, we would practically be defenseless against such superior life forms. Even if we fired explosives and missiles into the atmosphere, our primitive defenses would most likely have a small effect (or none at all) on the assault. Sending soldiers into space to fight also seems out of the question, considering the only humans in space are on the International Space Station and are far from efficient soldiers - even so, the ISS is completely dependent on Earth and is only armed with a gun to be used in case of hostile animals upon return to Earth.

In Return of the Jedi, the Death Star was revealed to be capable of destroying entire ships [3]. Should we construct a Death Star or Death Star-like device, we would substantially improve our defensive capabilities. This construction would only be possible if we begin research.

2. Economic Benefits

Though this is a much smaller point, it is still significant. According to Wookiepedia, the Second Death Star could hold just short of 2.5 passengers, many of which were workers and guards. [4] We must also take into account the employment opportunities necessary for the Empire to create the Death Star; just as perhaps millions of construction workers built the Death Star for the Empire, thousands and perhaps millions of construction workers may be needed to construct a Death Star or Death Star-like device for the United States. Furthermore, new jobs may be created in science fields for researching how to best construct a device and what it will be specifically armed with; other scientific and research careers would be supported. John Aziz with The Week writes that the construction of a Death Star would have "massive beneficial economic effects for employment, output, science, technology, and so forth." [5].

3. If Impossible Now, Beginning Research Would Enable Construction In the Future

I can only assume that my opponent will comment on how constructing a Death Star today would be impossible. For the Empire, the construction of the First Death Star cost quadrillions of dollars whereas the United States is trillions in debt and only intends to spend just over $3 trillion per year (and most of this budget is dominated by military spending, medicare, and social security anyway). In Round 1, I made it clear that I will support research and not actual construction. In my previous contentions, I stated the potential benefits a theoretical Death Star or Death Star-like device would yield.

The point I am attempting to make is that beginning research today would set us up for our long-term goal of constructing a Death Star only when it is completely possible or absolutely necessary. One of my previous sources, The Week, states that projects we can undergo to get us closer to our goal include a mission to Mars, an upgraded energy particle accelerator, a base on our Moon, etc [5].

SOURCES
1. http://www.space.com...
2. http://www.livescience.com...
3. https://www.youtube.com...
4. http://starwars.wikia.com...
5. http://theweek.com...
RedPandaz

Con

1. Building a Death Star is ineffective
Despite the Death Star shown in Star Wars being shown as an all-powerful superweapon, there are many problems with it that make it close to useless
a. It's primary weapon, the turbolaser, is ineffective on fleets of ships.
-Try shooting a fly. It's not going to be all that effective. Putting so much power into one beam, which has been shown to have a long charging and firing time is a useless investment as most ships, even capital ships would have flown out of range by the time you could see it, aim, charge and fire. And speaking of aiming...
b. How would you aim it?
-Do you know how much energy it would take to even turn this thing? An unimaginable amount, even in space.
c. Why would you put a planet-destroying laser on this thing in the first place?
-The only planet you could possibly hit is our own, and trying to aim while in orbit, provided you could at all, you might accidentally hit the planet or at least burn the atmosphere
d. It would only aggravate other civilizations into thinking we are a threat
e. Conclusion: The Death Star is problematic in its inception
2. The Death Star would be impossible to build and maintain
a. We don't have the materials
-Estimates indicate it would take 830,000 years of Earth's current steel output to create enough metal for the hull of the
superstructure alone.
(http://www.space.com...)
b. Pollution
-Rocket launches to send all that metal and other building materials to space would pollute the atmosphere to the point
that anyone left who could use the Death Star would have to live on it " Earth would be uninhabitable.
(http://www.space.com...)
b. Energy
-Can you imagine how much energy it would take to build this and get the materials in orbit? More than we have here
on Earth
c. Money
-The cost is also difficult to bear: $850 quadrillion, according to the White House's response to an online petition to
build a Death Star, which is many times the U.S. national debt of about $20 trillion.
(http://www.space.com...)
d. Getting people and supplies to the Death Star would be almost as unfeasible
e. We might accidentally put it too close to the Earth and it would break up
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)
f. An explosion of the laser or generator would be devastating to life on earth
(http://www.businessinsider.com...)
e. Conclusion: The Death Star could not be built in the first place
3. Money would be better put into expanding a current starfleet
-Things such as the U.S.S Enterprise from Star Trek, even the newest version, would be much more feasible and much
more useful
(http://www.popularmechanics.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
TheConservativeSocialist

Pro

"It's primary weapon, the turbolaser, is ineffective on fleets of ships.... most ships, even capital ships would have flown out of range."
Actually, in Return of the Jedi, the Death Star effectively destroys an entire ship. This was discussed in my first contention and I attached a source for it at the end of my argument. Here it is again (https://www.youtube.com...).

"How would you aim it? Do you know how much energy it would take to turn this thing?"
The Death Star actually can aim without turning the entire station. The Death Star is armed with eight tributary lasers (and four backups) that allow the superlaser to aim. Here's a source for that: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com.... I also said in both round one and round two that the research would be for a Death Star or Death Star-like device, meaning that we could research better methods for aiming and apply them to a similar device rather than construct an exact replica of the superlaser.

"The only planet we could possibly hit is our own."
As previously stated in round two and in this round, the superlaser on the Death Star is capable of destroying entire ships. Also, the death star is capable of travelling at light speed (in A New Hope, it travels from Alderaan to Yavin IV; this would have taken years without light speed capabilities, and A New Hope takes places in a few days). This means that is could quickly travel to different systems. Here's two sources for that:
1. http://movies.stackexchange.com...
2. https://www.quora.com...

"It would only aggravate other civilizations into thinking we are a threat."
There is no evidence provided that this would happen. In my opinion, our Death Star (or Death Star-like device) would be seen more as a defensive weapon to protect against hostile extraterrestrials.

"We don't have the materials."
That's why I made sure to say Death Star-like device, meaning a device with very similar capabilities as the Death Star rather than an exact replica.

"Rocket launches to send all that metal and other building materials to space would pollute the atmosphere."
This is true, and I don't disagree with you. It is precisely why we should expand research into construction before we immediately begin construction now or in the future. Scientists tasked with this research must find how to work past these complications. One potential solution (just a possibility, I am not a scientist) would be the use of clean energy in rockets. Here's a source on how recent innovations in clean energy are taking place: https://spinoff.nasa.gov....

- Response to money, energy, and getting workers/supplies into space points:
Our device does not have to be an exact replica of the Death Star. Research into construction would allow us to develop solutions to these issues. I am affirming that we should begin research, not construction.

- Response to putting it too close to Earth and threat to life on Earth.
Research into construction would allow us to develop solutions to these issues. I am affirming that we should begin research, not construction.

"Money would be better put into expanding a current starfleet."
I don't think we should choose between a starfleet and a Death Star. Instead, we could do both. In my third contention in round two, I discussed other space initiatives that would get us closer to our goal of constructing a Death Star. We could begin researching both a starfleet and a Death Star now, then construct the starfleet when we are ready. After, at the proper moment, we could construct a Death Star or Death Star-like device.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RedPandaz 1 year ago
RedPandaz
I was busy so I forgot till after the end of the round :/ Can you move to the next round?
Posted by RedPandaz 1 year ago
RedPandaz
Oops, forgot about this :/
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.