The destruction of Death Star was an unjustified act of terrorism

Burden of ProofI'd like to remind everyone that the burden of proof is shared, and so I will have to show that the destruction of the Death Star was unjustified, while my opponent will have to demonstrate the opposite. It is not enough for each of us to show why our opponent's case is invalid. Both of us will have to provide something constructive. TerrorismMy opponent agrees with the resolution that this was an act of terrorism, and we will not be arguing about this, as we will be focusing on the whether or not it was actually justified. For readers who may disagree, I will not write out the full argument, but it basically boils down to the definition of terrorism given in Round 1: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " Since the destruction of the Death Star was a struggle between different political systems, and the destruction itself was intended to coerce the Empire into giving up their power, it qualifies as terrorism by definition. I am happy to explain this in more detail in the comments. But now, let's move on to the main argument. I will first introduce Arguments A and B, which deal with the general principles of the Empire and the Rebel Alliance. Then, with further arguments, I shall show how those principles apply to the Death Star and its destruction. Argument A: The Empire was a legitimate form of governmentThe Empire is often seen as an illegitimate form of government, a coup d'état that overthrew the supposedly legitimate Jedi-supported Republic. However, the proclamation of the New Order was a wholly democratic move. Emperor Palpatine's ascension to the position of Galactic Emperor was generally supported by the Senate, as seen in Episode III, where Padmé Amidala described the whole scene as follows: "So this is how liberty dies. .. with thunderous applause. "A thunderous applause would not have occurred if Palpatine was disliked, or if the Senate had trusted the Jedi Order's view of Palpatine. The fact that the Senate voluntarily gave power to Palpatine and recognized him as an Emperor suggests that it was the right thing to do from the perspective of the Senators, which represented their planets and their people. It was the right thing to do from the perspective of democracy. And while Padmé may have seen this as the death of liberty, throughout this debate I will argue that this is the wrong way of looking at the Empire. The point of this argument is to show that the Empire was legitimate and created by the will of the majority, and, thus, trying to overthrow it with the use of a military organization like the Rebel Alliance would indeed be a coup d'état, and it would actually be illegitimate, since bringing back the Republic is something that only a minority of the people wished for. The Rebel Alliance and the people who supported it were therefore advocating for extremist, undemocratic views and the use of terrorism to achieve their goals. Something that goes against the law may not necessarily be morally unjustified, but I would argue that the Rebel Alliance didn't even have moral justification for their actions. The only thing they did was bring war and death upon many Empire's officials and civilians, and it was an attempt to destabilize a stable regime. Which brings me to my next argument. .. Argument B: The Empire was goodThe reason why the Empire was founded in the first place was because the Galactic Republic was unstable, facing constant wars and unable to deal with conflict efficiently. The Jedi Order and their promises of peace and safety never came true, and, therefore, the people and the Senate were right to wish for a better system. That system was the Empire. The Empire stabilized the galaxy and introduced safety measures against conflict. It built a vast array of academies where people could learn advanced military skills to protect the galaxy from internal threats, they introduced new jobs and started work on powerful infrastructure. The institutionalization of bounty hunters was also a very effective way to combat crime. Even professional smugglers like Han Solo faced difficulties with the Empire. Greedo, an employee of the Jabba the Hutt smuggler's clan, commented on how Han wasn't able to outwit the Empire, even with his experience and fast spaceship: "He [Jabba the Hutt] has no use for smugglers who drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser [obviously referring to Han Solo's incompetence when faced with the Empire]"Moreover, no large scale wars occurred when the Emperor was in charge, as opposed to the time of the Galactic Republic, when wars and separatist movements were extremely common. Indeed, the only threat the Empire faced was the Rebel Alliance - an alliance of smugglers, traitors and extremist-sympathizers who's only goal was to re-instate a Jedi-ruled galaxy with an ineffective Republic. Even if the Rebels weren't an illegitimate organization, their goals would go against most people's common sense, because the Empire brought stability to the galaxy, as it had promised. Recognizing that their methods were not rational and would never have been accepted democratically, it is no surprise then that they resorted to violence and terrorism. The Death StarThe Death Star was one of the primary peacekeeping machines of the Empire. Its construction was perhaps one of the greatest technological achievements of the Galaxy. Thousands of planets and millions of people working in tandem to create a beautiful piece of engineering - and for such a noble purpose. One of the shortcomings of the Galactic Republic was that it never decided to create anything like that, it never fought against crime with the deliberateness it required, and that, perhaps, was one of the reasons for its downfall. The Death Star, on the other hand, was a symbol of the security and peace of the Galaxy. Extremists, wishing upon the destruction of this regime by military means, were rightfully afraid of such a machine. The Death Star was a symbol of everything that was good with the Empire - and everything that the Galactic Republic was lacking. Perhaps that's why the Rebel Alliance, wishing to re-instate the Republic, viewed the Death Star with such a hatred - it empirically demonstrated the soundness of the Empire's methods. To destroy the Death Star means to go against the will of the people, who wished for a secure and peaceful galaxy, as shown in Argument A. To destroy the Death Star also means to go against everything good that the Empire has done for the Galaxy - education, efficiency, security and peace, as shown in Argument B. With this I hope that most of the readers can now see the blatant terrorism of the Rebel Alliance - an unfounded, irrational and blatantly stupid attempt at overthrowing a successful and beneficial regime. With this propose that the resolution is true and that the Destruction of the Death Star was unjustified. Over to Con.