The Instigator
SirMaximus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Greedo shot first

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 707 times Debate No: 84325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SirMaximus

Con

This is a debate that has existed since 1997: did Han shoot in retaliation to Greedo attempting to shoot him, or did Han suddenly shoot Greedo without Greedo attempting to shoot him? (This is about Star Wars, if you couldn't tell.) The answer is the latter.

George Lucas should not have changed that scene in A New Hope. It didn't improve anything - and you should never change a running system. Secondly, in the original version where Han shot Greedo without warning, Han's character was more well-written. Han shooting Greedo without warning made him seem like more of an antihero than a hero, which made his character interesting. Having him shoot only in retaliation ruined the antihero effect. Thirdly and finally, there's no way that Greedo could have missed Han from 3 feet away. That's just stupid. Are we honestly supposed to believe that Greedo has the worst aim of anyone ever?

I welcome anyone to accept this challenge and debate me.
Reformist

Pro

This is my first debate outside of politics so get ready for political references (Not!)

Anyway we have to understand the situation Han Solo is in

Greedo is asking money for Jabba the Hutt but Solo doesn't have it. There is absolutely no indication Greedo will shoot and if he does it defeats the purpose because then Solo cant pay the money. Solo also knows this because face it he is not an idiot.

If you've watched the new film or even read the expanded universe you will see countless times where Han talks his way out of things even when blasters are being pointed at him. Killing Greedo would complicate things because more bounty hunters would come after him.

We also have to understand that Han Solo just isn't an anti hero. Your thinking more of Anakin (Pre episode 3). Anakin will always get things done, whether it includes killing unarmed people or not. If it gets the job done he doesn't care but Han Solo on the other hand is extremely two dimensional in that you know what he's going to do. He has a soft heart and wont kill unless its absolutely necessary. I wouldn't say it makes him uninteresting, his personality is great, its just he is not an anti hero.

You also bring up the fact that Greedo couldn't miss Han at that range.

http://starwars.wikia.com...

Blaster fire is not like real life. Blasters rarely hit their intended target unless aimed down the sights with good accuracy.

There is also proof that Greedo was just a bad shot with a blaster and was overconfident

" In adulthood, Greedo was overconfident and slow on the uptake, and something of a poor shot with a blaster" (http://starwars.wikia.com...)

If you mix all these factors in you have an overconfident person with a poor shot who is not even aiming down his sights. So this could of course could happen. I'm not saying its a definitive circumstance its just that its definitely possible.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://starwars.wikia.com...

http://starwars.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SirMaximus

Con

My opponent says, "If you've watched [The Force Awakens] or even read the expanded universe you will see countless times where Han talks his way out of things even when blasters are being pointed at him. Killing Greedo would complicate things because more bounty hunters would come after him." If we're going to count the expanded universe as canon (which I'll allow my opponent to do if they so choose), then Han prefers shooting first. He even says in Han Solo at Stars' End, an EU novel, "I happen to like to shoot first, Rekkon. As opposed to shooting second." (see starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_Solo_at_Stars%27_End and the section "Smuggling career" in starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_Solo/Legends) That proves that he prefers shooting first (or being the only shooter) to shooting second.

My opponent also says, "We also have to understand that Han Solo just isn't an anti hero. Your thinking more of Anakin (Pre episode 3). Anakin will always get things done, whether it includes killing unarmed people or not. If it gets the job done he doesn't care but Han Solo on the other hand is extremely two dimensional in that you know what he's going to do. He has a soft heart and wont kill unless its absolutely necessary. I wouldn't say it makes him uninteresting, his personality is great, its just he is not an anti hero." However, it is quite clear when watching Star Wars that Han Solo is indeed an antihero, at least for part of Episode 4. He's sarcastic, cynical, and doesn't take orders from anyone (with the sole exception of himself).

My opponent finally says, "You also bring up the fact that Greedo couldn't miss Han at that range.

http://starwars.wikia.com......

Blaster fire is not like real life. Blasters rarely hit their intended target unless aimed down the sights with good accuracy.

There is also proof that Greedo was just a bad shot with a blaster and was overconfident

' In adulthood, Greedo was overconfident and slow on the uptake, and something of a poor shot with a blaster' (http://starwars.wikia.com......)

If you mix all these factors in you have an overconfident person with a poor shot who is not even aiming down his sights. So this could of course could happen. I'm not saying its a definitive circumstance its just that its definitely possible." Even if Greedo were a poor shot with a blaster, which he might have been, missing Han from 3 feet away is still highly unrealistic. A bad aim isn't enough to miss someone from that distance. You'd have to be near-blind to fail at shooting someone from 3 feet away. And contrary to what my opponent says, blasters are actually precise. After all, the stormtroopers use them (starwars.wikia.com/wiki/E-11_blaster_rifle), and according to Obi-Wan, the stormtroopers aim precisely (He opined to Luke that "[The] blast points [were] too accurate for Sand People" and that "Only Imperial Stormtroopers [were] so precise.").
Reformist

Pro

Im guessing round 2 is just rebuttal because my opponent hasn't brought up any other arguments.

When it comes to George Lucas the main creator himself who created the character of Han Solo said that Greedo shot first

http://content.usatoday.com...

Now of course Han Solo sometimes shoots first but only in a situation where he knows the other person will most likely open fire. That happens all the time. But in this specific situation Greedo wasn't going to shoot him because that would defeat the purpose of trying to get money from him.

My opponents definition of an anti hero is very misleading and just not true. An Anti Hero would be someone who has a good goal but does bad things to get to it. A perfect example is Lelouche in Code Geass. He wants to free Japan of a tyrannical government but he ends up killings thousands to get to his goal. His goal was great! But he massacred thousands of his own people just to get to his goal. Being sarcastic and not following orders doesn't make you an anti hero.

The Wikipedia definition of being an anti hero: An antihero or antiheroine is a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage, and morality

Han Solo has morality, courage and idealism. So in turn he is not a anti hero.

My opponent also states that blaster fire is accurate and (hilariously) uses stormtroopers as an example for their accuracy.

ANY star wars fan knows that stormtroopers are TERRIBLE with their aim

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com...

Other characters like Obi Wan have actually never encountered a stormtrooper. He has never been in combat with a Stormtrooper. Of course he has had exchanges with them but he has never fought with them. Obi Wan could've just been recounting the deadliness of the CLONES.

Sources:

http://content.usatoday.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com...

http://www.cracked.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SirMaximus

Con

My opponent has mentioned that George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, said that Greedo shot first. But what a creator says about their work does not change canon. Just like books belong to their readers, movies belong to their viewers.

My opponent claims that Han only shoots first when he knows that his victim will probably shoot him, but Greedo wasn't going to shoot him because that would have defeated the purpose of bargaining money from him. But Greedo was putting Han at gunpoint in order to get the money. Greedo was pointing a gun at Han, so of course Han shot him first.

My opponent says that my definition of an antihero is false. My opponent says that an actual antihero is a character who uses questionable means to achieve a just goal. That is one kind of antihero, indeed, but a sarcastic individual who doesn't take orders from anyone but their self is another kind of antihero. The Wikipedia definition says, as my opponent has quoted,
"An antihero or antiheroine is a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage, and morality". My opponent says that, since Han has all 3 of those things, he's not an antihero. Han definitely has courage and idealism, but what about morality? Han is, at the end of the day, a good guy, but he does do some questionable things, making his morality ambiguous. He does help Obi-Wan and Luke, but he makes it clear that he doesn't care about their Rebellion (initially, anyway), and that he's only in it for the money. Does that sound like someone with a pure heart to you? Not to me.

My opponent points out that, contrary to what I claimed in Round 2, stormtroopers actually aim rather terribly. My opponent is right about that, and I admit that I was incorrect.
Reformist

Pro

Again George Lucas automatically has power over whats canon or not. Well he used to. Just like how Disney officially made the EU non-canon he made the bar scene non-canon in 1997

Ok now this is going to get a little tricky. I don't want to spoil "The Force Awakens" so if you haven't watched it yet don't read this. In the movie (which is officially canon) Han Solo is met with people who have guns pointed at him. He has Chewie by his side and he still doesn't fire. Again he has a wookie with a bow caster and a DL-44 but he still doesn't shoot.

Con also brings up that Han Solo is a "different" kind of anti-hero because he is sarcastic and doesn't follow orders well. You don't have to be a order following robot who doesn't have any personality to be a hero. In fact its the opposite. An anti-hero goes through any means to get his goals and has a cold heart. Han Solo obviously does not have those traits.

We also have to understand the context of why Han Solo doesn't care about the rebellion initially. He is a smuggler who is sucked into all of this drama really quickly. His goal is to just make money. That's because that's his job. His job is to smuggle and make money. Not caring about a cause doesn't make you a anti-hero. Actually quite the opposite. Having conviction actually drives you to take brutal actions to get the job done. More conviction the more apathetic you become to everything but your cause.

Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
SirMaximus

Con

George Lucas doesn't have power over what's canon or not, nor did he in the past (or if he ever had power, he shouldn't have had it). Authorial intent doesn't make it canon. If it were canon, it would've been in the movie. I do realize that he put it in the 1997 special edition of the movie, but he shouldn't have - because, as I stated in Round 1, you should never change a running system.

I've already seen The Force Awakens, so spoil away. My opponent has mentioned that in Episode 7, Han, who has a wookiee with a bow caster by his side and a DL-44, doesn't shoot people who have guns pointed at him. What my opponent fails to realize is that this might have been due to the fact that, despite giving tremendous damage to victims at close range, the DL-44 overheated quickly (starwars.wikia.com/wiki/DL-44_heavy_blaster_pistol). I do realize that this is the same gun that Han used in the original trilogy, but it's possible that after decades of having used it, he decided that the fast overheating outweighed the tremendous damage it could give to targets.

My opponent has said that, since an antihero is someone with a cold heart who goes through any means to get their goals, Han is not an antihero as that does not describe him. However, Han does have somewhat of a cold heart. He initially couldn't care less about the rebellion.

My opponent has also said that Han's job is to smuggle and make money, which is why he doesn't initially care about the rebellion. My opponent has used this to defend Han's character. However, being a smuggler is somewhat shady in and of itself, so this just adds to his antihero character. The fact that smuggling and making some cash is pretty much all that he cares about (at first, anyway) makes him an antihero.
Reformist

Pro

Major Spoliers so anyone who hasn't watched Force Awakens don't read what I say.

There is no collateral damage around Han and he has 3 people pointing guns at him on the ship scene. You say its because the gun may overheat?

That's not the case in the 10 minute forest battle where he is using that thing like hotcakes.

Again a person who LACKS conviction for a cause is less of an anti-hero because conviction leads you to take actions that are not moral for that cause.

As a smuggler you can have a kind heart or a dark one. It just depends on the person. And believe me Han Solo has a kind heart
Debate Round No. 4
SirMaximus

Con

My opponent objects to my statement that it's possible that Han didn't use the DL-44 in The Force Awakens only out of fear that it might overheat, asserting that "he [was] using [the DL-44] like hotcakes" in the forest battle in Return of the Jedi. Again, this might have been because, after decades of having used the DL-44, he decided that he didn't want to risk the quick overheating. Remember that The Force Awakens takes place about 3 decades after Return of the Jedi (wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens).

My opponent also says, "As a smuggler you can have a kind heart or a dark one. It just depends on the person. And believe me Han Solo has a kind heart". But, as I have previously stated, Han Solo does have a kind heart at the end of the day, but he does do some questionable things. Lacking conviction for a cause does make you an antihero (if the cause is moral and just, anyway), because it shows that you don't care about something you should care about.

Vote Con!
Reformist

Pro

Firstly you misunderstand

I'm talking about the forest scene in the FORCE AWAKENS.

Also causes aren't moral or immoral. Its depends on you the person.

Well that was a fun little debate

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.