Was destroying the Death Star necessary?
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: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 887 times | Debate No: | 48957 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)
 Con  Pro |
 |
|
Con Pro 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. |
 |
|
Con Pro 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. |
 |
Post a Comment
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 7 years ago
| Ozzyhead | STALIN | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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 7 years ago
| Ozzyhead | STALIN | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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.
