The US Should Build a Death Star

I am going to start with rebuttals and then move into arguments of my own. As the Burden of Proof is heavily on Pro it is up to me to simply negate that a Death Star is in the citizens of the United States' best interest.Rebuttals 1. Status QuoTo put it simply we have no evidence of extraterrestrial life. Governments have no acknowledged any presence of life in our solar system or local galactic neighborhood. We cannot justify a building project of this kind because there might be aliens nearby who might be hostile who might be able to reach us in a reasonable amount of time to affect the near future. That is a lot of uncertainty to start on a project that will very likely break the entire global economy. a. "Intergalactic Defense" My opponent says we have no interstellar combat capabilities, which is true, but a Death Star would not even be the right type of capability to develop in the name of defense. The Death Star is a primarily offensive weapon whose original purpose was to be deployed to incite fear among star systems. "Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." - Gran Moff Tarkin [1]That is not a defensive capability. In fact the Death Star's main purpose is to destroy a planet. The only planet we have to destroy right now is our own. It would make no sense to construct such a base. My opponent is arguing for building a purely offensive station, designed to destroy planets and have battle fleet support (of which we have none of) in the name of defense. This makes no sense. 2. Sputnik MomentSimply saying we want to develop a technology does not mean the technology will appear. You seem to think just because we say "time to build a Death Star" that the technology to do so will come into existence in a reasonable amount of time. This is absurd. We do not have the technology to complete such a project. Not even close. It took us ten years to get a probe onto a comet [2] and even then we didn't land it properly. Now you want us to build a Death Star? Insanity. Leonardo a Vinci also wanted to invent fabulous machines such as flying machines [3] but just because he willed them to work and put them into "development" did not mean that his efforts came to fruition. In fact, we did not achieve flight until centuries later despite having a "Sputnik Moment" getting inspired by other successes and developing flying machines.Trying to develop ion propulsion, space elevators, lasers that can destroy entire planets, will be a similar venture. Even if we did put these techs into development the technology that goes into building a Death Star is so advanced we would have to develop countless technologies simultaneously and deploy them together when we've never had such technologies before. It is not a logical thing to hope for.3. Jobs/HousingMost of these "jobs" you claim will be created would have to end up in space at some point. Most of the work, especially if we follow your plan, will be done in space. We don't even have the capabilities to get our own astronauts into space at the moment, a shuttle of a few people. How are we supposed to safely transport 2 million people into space and have them live in space stations when the technology is not there? Seems like a bogus statistic to me. a. DisastersThe Death Star would have to be 100% self sufficient in order for it to serve this purpose as my opponent wants. First of all the Death Star is a military installation. It was not designed with civilians in mind. It wasn't designed to house humanity and be self sufficient. Changing the Death Star from a purely military construct into something of an Ark for humanity would make it no longer a Death Star. You are now arguing for a different project entirely. 4. Launch Pad for SpacecraftThe question I am going to ask in response to this section is: Why do we have to build a Death Star to launch spacecraft? Why not build a far more viable space port that is not the size of a small moon? Could we not for example, put a space port on the moon to launch spacecraft? Furthermore, in order for the ships to get this benefit they would already have to be on the Death Star. Is the Death Star also going to manufacture ships? How are we getting the ships/ship parts the Death Star? They are still going to have to originate on Earth so the benefits are negated by that. Unless your Death Star can also harvest, build, construct and deploy the ships all internally without having any interaction with ships leaving another planetary body your math is useless. 5. PlanSince we can barely land a probe on a comet I am skeptical to our ability to convert an asteroid into a Death Star with our current capabilities. Secondly, converting this asteroid would not make a Death Star. If we look at the opening round of this debate, the link provided [http://starwars.wikia.com...] shows something completely different than what my opponent describes. My opponent conjures to mind a lumpy asteroid that is ill fitted with some equipment and then slapping the name Death Star to it. The Death Star was not a converted asteroid but a fully constructed battlestation that is spherical and wholly artificial. By making this argument my opponent is purposefully breaking from the original argument he set out to defend in the purpose of making his job easier. This entire plan does not make a Death Star that the debate calls for but rather it makes a crudely converted asteroid into a "weaponized" "human lifeboat" and not a Death Star.Arguments1. EconomicsAccording to the original source provided the Death Star has over 40,000 various laser batteries and outfits. That is just the weapon compliment alone. Not to mention we would have to build a station the size of a small moon completely artificially in order to satisfy the debate requirements. I would wager that the entire Earth does not have enough materials or capital to build such a massive monstrosity. Pouring endless money into a completely frivolous and fruitless endeavour will both a) take money out of other projects that are more realistic and more directly benefit people on Earth and b) would put enormous strain on the global economy. And for what? Nothing.2. US Citizens The debate is framed around the US citizen which my opponent has not mentioned at all. He mentions humans and humanity a lot but not the US citizen. The debate is not about whether a Death Star is good for humanity or Earth but the United States in general. That being said, the United States would have to foot this bill almost entirely on their own if they are going to be the ones who are the primary beneficiaries. The United States already has nearly $18,000,000,000,000 in debt currently and is in no position to undergo such a project for their benefit. The US citizen would not benefit from a Death Star. It would be economically detrimental to the citizen and putting in so many resources to a fruitless project would damage the United States on the global scale just as the arms race in the Cold War damaged the USSR. Conclusion There is not an immediate threat from aliens. The Death Star is an offensive weapon not defensive so its usefulness defending the Earth is questionable anyways. The only inhabited planet we can destroy at the moment is our own. The technology simply doesn't exist to build such a station and is not even on the horizon. The plan my opponent proposed does not fit with his original plan of the Death Star. There are simpler methods of achieving the benefits he describes without building a military battlestation. The US citizen would not benefit from the construction of a Death Star in the slightest. Thank you. [1] http://www.imsdb.com...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...[3] http://www.da-vinci-inventions.com...[4] http://starwars.wikia.com...[5] http://www.usdebtclock.org...