The Instigator
Pathos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

In comparison to Captain Kirk, Captain Picard is a superior captain and leader.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Kinesis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,886 times Debate No: 11605
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (4)

 

Pathos

Pro

The summation of Captain Picard's character is superior to the summation of Captain Kirk's character both in ideology and action. By this virtue, Captain Picard is a superior Captain and Leader.
For this argument, a superior leader and Captain will be defined as having the quality of great value or excellence within, but not limited to, the duties assigned to them as Star Fleet Captains. Great value for the human race, and all sentient and non-sentient life forms within the Star Trek Universe will also be considered. If necessary, we can explore and discuss which of the two Captains employed a superior moral philosophy. And which of those philosophies actually provided the actual greater good. Not the espoused goals but the execution and the results of the philosophy.
Categories for superiority are defined as but are not limited to: intellect, hand to hand combat, diplomacy, recognizing and utilizing the individual potential of crew members, recognition and utilization of available technology, resourcefulness, survival rate of crew, courage, adaptability, and the success of subordinate officers after their tour with the Enterprise or the retirement of their Captain. All points must be supported by a intention, action, result analysis.
I am not interested in debating the actual rank within Star Fleet of the two admired Captains, which Captain had the better ship, or who was the better actor. For the sake of consistency, I wish to restrict our character analysis of Captain Kirk and Captain Picard within the confines of the reality and dimension represented in theatrical and television cannons. The most current Star Trek movie is allowed for character analysis, but the written novels are not.

Why is Picard Superior:
Captain Picard invented an evasive attack maneuver that became known as the Picard Maneuver. Which, in the future becomes required reading for Star Fleet Candidates.
Captain Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru by cheating.

This short simple example accurately illustrates the resourcefulness, courage, intellect, and adaptability of Captain Picard. In contrast to this, Captain Kirk's method of cheating for success represents the psychology of a man deeply vested in convincing his peers, superior officers, and himself of the illusion that he has created for himself. Captain Kirk is an appealing character because he successfully represents the mythic daring, charismatic, rebellious and dangerous impulses that Western culture suppresses and simultaneously identifies as being masculine. He is a man who is unorthodox, revolutionary, breaks the rules of system, yet he is acknowledged as an authority within the system. This makes him more entertaining and more mythic, but it does not make him a better captain or leader.

We would all rather watch Captain Kirk and read about him in Star Fleet tabloids, but we would all rather serve on Captain Picard's ship.
Kinesis

Con

I thank Pro for presenting this interesting debate. I am glad Pro has provided some categories of superiority, since that will hopefully prevent this debate from sliding into subjective opinion. Pro will be arguing that Captain Picard is superior to Captain Kirk, and I will be attempting to negate that claim.

-> Tactical ability <-

Pro contends that Picard invented an evasive attack manoeuvre named after him, and indeed he is correct. However, Kirk also has a manoeuvre named after him - Pattern Kirk epsilon, used by Picard himself in the Nemesis movie. The enterprise-E also had a number of other battle manoeuvres named for Kirk [1], so it likely that Kirk has also invented some unique manoeuvres, and this point does not count in favour of Picard exclusively.

Regardless, Kirk has proven himself time and time again as a tactical master, as well as being acknowledged by some extremely worthy people. In the episode "Balance of Terror", where the Romulans are first encountered, he manages to defeat the enemy ship despite it having cloaking abilities and powerful plasma torpedoes, using a number of unorthodox tactics such as hiding in the tail of a comet and mirroring its movements to simulate a sensor ghost. The Romulan commander repeatedly acknowledges Kirk as an exceptional tactician. [2]

In the second Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, he defeats Khan despite the enemy taking the Enterprise by surprise at first and severely crippling it. He does this (and this is explicitly stated) using his superior ship to ship combat experience.

I can provide many more examples if my opponent should wish it. From this, we can see that it is absurd to suggest that Picard is a superior leader simply because he has had a manoeuvre named after him. Kirk has proven himsekf again and again in this regard.

-> Judgement <-

Since it is quite difficult to compare 'moral philosophies' between the two (none are explicitly stated), I shall attempt to argue that Kirk's actions more consistently contribute to a 'greater good' (not an easy thing to define, but I'm sure we all have an intuitive grasp of what it means).

I cannot be bothered to go through every episode and film in the series and count how many times each has saved the world/universe (although I'm sure Kirk has the advantage in this regard), but I shall provide key examples where Picard has show extreme lapses of judgement, putting his ship and crew (and sometimes the entire universe) in grave risk for inadequate reasons.

Perhaps the most grievous example of this is when he meets the Borg 'Hugh' and has the chance to send a virus into the Borg collective using him. Because Hugh begins to exhibit signs of individuality, Picard decides not to use him. Apart from being a dodgy way to assign value to life (why are individuals worth less than people who work in tandem with others), this absurd decision literally costs billions of lives from all kinds of civilisations in the future, as well as condemning earth to threat after threat. This horrible lapse o judgement clearly shows Picard to be unable to make the correct, tough decisions when it matters.

[1] http://memory-alpha.org...
[2] http://memory-alpha.org...(episode)
Debate Round No. 1
Pathos

Pro

Great Points!
Much thanks and appreciation to Con for taking this debate, after reading his response, I only regret limiting this to only 3 rounds. I think Con has presented some fantastic arguments, in which I hope to address thoroughly. Win or lose, I am very happy to have found a worthy opponent that loves Star Trek.

On tactics, Kirk displays some cleverness at best. I will have to revisit, compare and contrast some battles to better combat this claim, and I promise to do so in the next round. I couldn't't help but heavily discuss Khan and Hugh in this round as I feel they are heavy hitting points that need immediate addressing.

Khan:
First, I feel it worthy to give the admired Captain Kirk his due respect. He defeated Khan Noonien Singh twice. Khan was a genetically engineer superhuman and is amongst the top ten greatest villains of all time. I agree with my opponent in that it would take an extraordinary tactician and leader to defeat Khan. But in comparison to Picard, this does not make Kirk a superior Captain or Leader. Picard bested the mischievous threatening and seemingly omnipotent being know as "Q". Khan is a more recognized villain, but Q is a superior adversary.

In the first confrontation with Khan, Con, conveniently ignores a very important fact. Kirk was faced with certain the loss of his ship to Khan or the loss of his life. The ship's historian rescued him and neutralized Khan's subordinates using a neural gas. In the end it was the consistent emotional irrationality of the Marla McGivers that saved the day. Kirk merely bested Khan in hand combat, gave him a quick hearing, and exiled him to an uninhabited planet. A planet in a system where Kirk failed to do the remedial research needed to determine if the system was indeed hospitable. Interestingly but not surprisingly, this event creates the next confrontation between Khan and Kirk.

Khan's planet becomes inhospitable due to explosion of the sixth planet in the system. Khan loses his wife and most of his followers because of this. This leads to a series of exciting battles between Kirk and Khan and ends with the unfortunate but noble sacrifice of Spock. Everyone is left with the reassurance the Kirk remains uncontested in both tactics and execution. Such illusions need to be confronted with reason. Upon re examination of the movie we see that it was indeed Spock that deceived Khan thus creating the opportunity for Kirk to defeat Khan. Plus how can we ignore the glaringly obvious point that Khan had almost zero experience with three-dimensional space combat, no crew and no Star Fleet Academy accreditation. And Khan still almost defeats him! I repeat, the Enterprise is the flag ship of the Federation, with the best crew possible in the federation and Khan despite his deficit in knowledge both technological and crew wise, he still came dangerously close in defeating Kirk. Furthermore, Spock repaired the warp drive that enabled them to escape the nebula. What would Kirk have done if Spock was a being of lesser character and morality or simply just fudged the repairs? The obvious result would have been the mutual destruction of Khan, his ship the Reliant, Kirk, the Enterprise and all of its crew.

From this, we surmise that Kirk is the superior Captain to Picard because he was able to defeat someone for which he had a disproportionate advantage to, and to which his success was deemed possible by first emotional irrationality of Khan's love interest, and second the quick wit and self sacrifice of his second officer. These are the actions of a superior tactician…Really?

Khan is beloved and idolized because of his Shakespearean demise and because he presented the Star Trek audience with a character embodied the same egotism comparable to only that of Captain Kirk. Is it any surprise that people who love Kirk, love Khan as a nemesis to Kirk? Do not the individual and collective enemies of a man reveal the valor of his character? Is not a man defined by how he overcomes conflict? Perhaps I should recant some of the respect I ceded to Kirk at the start of this argument.

Q, on the other hand is a near omnipotent deity. He can stop death, create life, travel through time, stop time, create multiple versions of himself, and create entire worlds. He has every conceivable advantage over Picard. He even plunges Picard into alternate realities. Picard successful beats Q using intellect and calculated thinking. What speaks most to Picard's character is that after the multiple confrontations with Q, Q aides Picard in saving the human race. Picard was able to take an enemy, an enemy that boasted superior power and intellect, and convert him into a welcoming ally. Picard earns the respect of his enemy and nemesis, in contrast to Kirk who elicits only vengeance and wrath from his. Perhaps we can say that Kirk destroyed the big God Head at the edge of the galaxy. But really, he just ordered an orbital bombardment on a big floating head. On this merit alone the debate could end here.

Picard and Hugh:

I will first argue that Kirk has never encountered an opponent like the Borg. I will also state that Picard survived assimilation into a collective hybrid mind as Locutus. Despite an occasional lapse in emotional and imaginative control, he still maintained his psychological faculties (It says something with a race with a collective hybrid mind gives you an individual name). Furthermore, after experiencing the traumatic event being assimilated, he was still capable of imparting mercy and compassion against his enemy, (a far cry from Kirk). Con cites this as a reason to show inferiority, but he ignores Picard's reasoning, (Which I might add makes Picard so great, he possessed a sense of reasoning that was self evident, no Spock needed). Picard spared Hugh and the Borg because he first realized that Hugh was an individual. But most importantly he understood that genocide was wrong. Con would lead us to believe that Picard lacked superior moral and intellectual reasoning because Picard believes that exterminating an entire race of sentient beings is wrong. Furthermore, Picard is not the only captain to recognize this. Captain Janeway made a similar decision when she saved the Borg from Species 8472. From this we can conclude that either Picard set the moral standard for the Federation or was in coherence with it by virtue of his actions.

Picard assisted in making First Contact, thus making the Star Trek universe a reality to begin with. Was it not Picard that ventured into the Nexus to rescue Kirk from a fake reality? I cannot think of a more powerful example of superiority than this. Picard was able to realize the illusion, his reasonable and intellectual capabilities overcame self delusion. Whereas Kirk wanted a continuous existence in dream like reality, this is the mind of superior Captain? How many years was he in the Nexus? Let's compare that to how long it took Picard to snap out of it. I find this not too far from the Kirk when analyzing Kirk's mental landscape, he is a delusional but entertaining Captain.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://memory-alpha.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(Star_Trek)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://memory-alpha.org...
Kinesis

Con

Thanks to Pro for his excellent response.

Pro promises to address the displays of tactical ability I presented next round, which I am happy to allow. However, I do really hope he does, because while my opponent has spent a great deal of time refuting the Khan battle; that was really only a small part of my round, and really only meant to demonstrate that Kirk is an experienced tactician.

--> Khan <--

I'll freely confess that it was in other battles that he truly shone as creative and exceptional. I'll simply note that it was his idea to use the 'prefix code' plan to turn a completely hopeless situation in which the Enterprise was severely crippled against an enemy ship with similar combat abilities into an eventual victory. In addition, it is an extremely questionable tactic to claim that because Spock saved the ship the Kirk is a deficient captain - how many times has Picard's enterprise been saved by someone under his command? Even discounting Data, TNG's Spock counterpart, we can see that Picard constantly relies on his crew. This is such an obvious point (Ships have crews, not just captains...) that I won't give any examples. Just pick an episode of TNG at random and one of Picard's subordinates will undoubtedly play a pivotal role.

--> Q <--

Firstly, it is quite wrong to compare 'besting' Khan and 'besting' Q. While the fight with Khan was a death-match in which each was intent on destroying the other, Picard's mind games with Q were nothing alike. Q, while certainly an a-hole, who sometimes put lives at risk to pursue his own goals, nevertheless cannot even be reasonably categorised as a villain! In the first episode of TNG, he merely observes Picard while hoping he makes the wrong decision, interfering minimally in the mission. That Picard eventually came out on top is hardly any kind of impressive feat. All the subsequent encounters have usually just been Picard having to make the right decisions while under some scenario perpetrated by Q or the Q continuum. [1] [2]

Let's compare this to an encounter by Kirk against a similar being: Trelane. Trelane was a childish being with virtually unlimited power, having complete control over matter and energy. Unlike Q, who had no desire at all to destroy the Enterprise or its crew, Trelane was a childish, spiteful being who had no problem at all with killing people to further his own interests. Despite facing such a powerful and sadistic foe, Kirk manages to stall him until his parents arrive and take him away, even destroying some of the technology Trelane uses to supplement his immense powers. [3]

--> Hugh <--

That Kirk never encountered the Borg is an irrelevance - we can only judge both captains on the experiences they went through, since it is obviously impossible to see how both captains would act under the exact same circumstances, a point I will return to in a bit. It is explicitly stated that the Borg left Picard intact so they could use him as an ambassador to humanity, so him remaining intact isn't a point in his favour.

Pro makes the argument that it would have been wrong for Picard to take the opportunity to destroy the Borg. Firstly, a blindingly obvious fact needs to be addressed - this wasn't his reasoning at all! He didn't use Hugh because of Hugh's new found individuality. This is clearly shown by the fact that when Crusher suggested that line of argumentation Picard thoroughly refuted her, stating that while wiping out a race would be normally out of the question, the terrible threat posed by the Borg required it. It was only because of his chat with Hugh that he decided not to use him.

Secondly, seriously? It isn't justifiable to wipe out a race with the intention, capability and desire to wipe out and assimilate all life in the universe? Imagine, if you will, the vast number of worlds the Borg undoubtedly took over and assimilated because they weren't stopped right there right then. From Voyager, we can see they spread far and wide across the galaxy, bringing death and destruction to the lives and identity of countless sentient races. Imagine the countless lives that would have been saved if Picard had used the G-damn virus! This decision was heinously stupid, and frankly he should have been stripped of his status for it. He put the entire universe at risk because of his own idiocy and short-sightedness. This is easily enough to decide between the two once and for all.

--> The Nexus <--

There is a huge mistake my opponent is making here - he assumes that Kirk had been there for years, when in fact time is completely relative in The Nexus. In fact, KIRK ARRIVED AT THE SAME TIME AS PICARD. When Picard entered the Nexus, Kirk had also just been transported from the Enterprise, without the knowledge of what he was inside. The only reason Picard managed to break the illusion what because he already had detailed knowledge of what it was, while Kirk had no idea - he probably thought he was in heaven! Regardless, Kirk also breaks the illusion later on, realising that what he truly wanted was to make a difference.

[1] http://memory-alpha.org...(episode)
[2] http://memory-alpha.org...(episode)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Pathos

Pro

Thanks again to my opponent. I have really enjoyed this debate. I look forward to a continuation of this in the future.
Conclusion
Q:
My opponent ignores a very important point about Trelane. He is child amongst his race, while it is implied that Q is a fully developed intellectual being. Kirk only stalled Trelane, and he did so by making Trelane angry. This gets the best of his temper and childish intellect. Con dares to compare Q to Trelane, where it is obvious that Trelane has the emotional maturity of a 8 year old. Is there anything spectacular about being able to make a child upset? If a child has great power but is emotionally immature, is he really powerful at all? I never suggested that Kirk was not smarter than a fifth grader, I am stating that he is inferior to Picard. If Con's point holds true, that all Picard and Q did was play mind games, we still must recognize that Picard played mind games with a omnipotent and intellectually developed deity, not a malicious and powerful child.
Q judged the potential of humanity by testing Picard. That says something. At what point did Kirk serve as the ambassador for humanity on such a level?

Borg / Philosophy in action:
Make no mistake, what my opponent is stating is that a Star Fleet Officer should have committed genocide. The Borg is a sentient race, and it can be argued that they have never killed anyone except in self defense. In every episode where we see the Borg they assimilate until attacked. They assimilate whole planets and cultures, add to their knowledge, preserve the history and technology of that culture for eons, but they do not drop nukes on planets and obliterate whole planets. They simply have a different perspective of consciousness and individuality. One that we disagree with. e have a cultural bias toward homogeneous cultures, which is fine. But my opponent goes as far to say that Picard be stripped of his rank. I find this both ridiculous and insulting. Because Picard will not commit genocide, he should stripped of his rank. If there was a virus that killed all the or the Romulans, Ferengi, Klingons, Cardassians, or any of the Federation's former or present enemies, would he sanction the use of that too. I am sure the Federation scientist and doctors could if they wanted to. But there is a reason they do not. If Kirk found a virus to kill all of the Klingon's should he use it? If Con is to be consistent he should and we wouldn't have Worf.
I would also contest that threat of the Borg was an entirely bad thing. Look at the weaponry and technology developed as a response to the Borg presence. I am pointing to the last episode of Voyager here , "Endgame". Plus it is proves that and individuals conscious and individuality could be restored. As with Picard, and 7 of 9. Before we righteously claim that Picard is inferior to Kirk on this merit. Let's think about Voyager episodes Unimatrix Zero and Unimatrix Zero Part II. Let's think about how hot Seven of Nine is and let's ask ourselves. Should Picard have committed genocide to that race? I would even go as far as to say that Kirk after seeing Seven of Nine would have sided with Picard.
I will end this portion of the debate by stating the obvious. The Borg was a sentient species whose people were assimilated but not yet dead, technically no lives were lost. But had Picard introduced the virus he would have been ending the lives of Billions possible Trillions of lives, subsequently erasing the eons of culture, history and technology the Borg had catalogued in their data bases.
I would question the idea that Kirk entered the Nexus the same time as Picard, as it was clearly 78 years later, but will cede the point that Picard's advanced knowledge of the Nexus aided him in breaking the spell .
Tactics:
To my surprise, my opponent mentions the TNG first episode but dutifully ignores the mark of superior tactics that occur in Act Three. Though it may not have been a spectacular starship exploding value. Picard used a set of tactics that allowed the majority of his crew to safely escape.
Picard commanded the fleet that blockaded the Klingon-Romulan border during the Klingon Civil War. Kirk shows cleverness in managing his own ship, but he lacks the intellectual faculties needed to manage multiple ships at once. TNG Redemption and Redemption II
I agree with Con as he states that "Ships have crews, not just Captains...". What I would stress is of the greatest importance is how the crew is utilized. Both Captains are seen pushing their crews to levels of greatness. But it is Picard that encourages his crew to resounding excellence. Kirk calls on his crew once he has sufficiently put them all in grave danger. Picard is seen over and over again having open and equal dialogue with crew where they work toward a solution together. In fact almost every episode of TNG displays this.
Kinesis

Con

Thanks to Pro for this wonderful debate!

Before concluding, it would be remiss of me not to point out the arguments I brought up which Pro has not responded to. In my first round, I gave several examples of Kirk's tactical prowess. Pro responded to the smallest argument (about his battle with Khan), but not my more substantive one (his fight with the Romulan commander). In addition, he has dropped the point about Khan in the last round. He has also pretty much dropped the argument made about the Nexus - that Picard showed some sort of mental superiority is refuted. Finally, he has dropped the argument about Picard having a manoeuvre named after him.

Also, his last round was almost entirely defensive against MY arguments. As Pro and instigator, he really had the burden of proof in showing why Picard is a superior leader to Kirk. He has not done this, and that is enough to justify a victory for Con.

To sum up, I argued several points in Kirk's favour:

1. Kirk has shown brilliant tactical prowess.
2. Kirk has defeated powerful beings like Trelane.
3. Picard has shown extreme short-sightedness and neglect, specifically in his encounter with Hugh.

--> Q & Trelane <--

Firstly, I didn't 'ignore' the point about Trelane being a child - in fact, that was the whole point of my argument! While Q was in control of his abilities, Trelane was perfectly content to kill or attack for his own amusement or in anger - just like a bratty child with a huge amount of power. While Q could be reasoned with, and posed no immediate threat to the TNG crew, Trelane could, and might have destroyed the entire crew in a childish rage at any moment. Despite this, his certainly wasn't stupid! He had detailed knowledge of earth's history, and displayed much more intelligence than a human child. He was just immature, and that made him MORE dangerous, not less.

It is true that Picard was the first person approached by the Q - so what? There is no evidence that they chose him for any special reason. He was just the first person they happened to make contact with from the human race.

--> Picard & Hugh <--

Firstly, it is actually quite dubious to even call the Borg a race - they are a faction of beings who believe sentient races should be either assimilated into themselves (thus enslaving them into a nightmarish living-machine existence) or annihilated. They are made up from the twisted remnants of previous races, but they aren't actually a race themselves. That Pro should attempt to defend the ideology and methods of such a horrific faction is testament to his desperation at this point (not to mention his Seven of Nine reference). And to compare them to previous enemies of humanity is completely irrelevant - they are nothing like the quasi-human races that inhabit the galaxy along with humanity.

Secondly, Pro ignores my point that this was not actually Picard's reasoning! His reasoning was that Hugh was an individual, and therefore it would be immoral to use him. He thinks that it would be immoral to sacrifice one individual to save trillions upon trillions! Such monstrously illogical reasoning clearly shows him to be, well, horribly unsuitable for making large scale decisions - I'm sorry, but the inability to make decisions like this simply shows him to be unfit for the role of safeguarding a starship full of people. Never mind an inferior captain to Kirk, I'm not sure he should even BE a captain.

On a side note, Pro is simply wrong about the Nexus - it is explicitly stated in the film (I watched that part of the film to be sure) that from Kirk's point of view he arrives at the same time as Picard. This point is completely refuted.

--> last arguments <--

Picard played a minimal role in commanding a fleet of Federation ships (not into battle, but to scan for cloaked Romulan ships). Firstly, there is no reason to think Kirk couldn't play such a role (as Pro suggests), and secondly, he hardly shows any significant leadership or tactical skills in this confrontations, so I'm not sure what Pro is even getting at here.

Pro claims that while Picard works together with his crew, Kirk merely puts them in danger. This opinion is beyond belief - anyone who watched TOS or the movies knows that the delightful interplay between Kirk and his crew, along with the strong bonds between them is one of the main draws of the show. Also, Picard constantly puts his ship in danger! How many times has he faced down a deadly enemy to get back a single one of his crew? How many times has he put his personal feelings in front of his professional duty? The answer is: far too many for comfort.
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by THE_EDGE 7 years ago
THE_EDGE
and if ur a TNG fan, check out http://www.jandrewedits.com...
Posted by THE_EDGE 7 years ago
THE_EDGE
PICARD is way better- i mean come on! how in the hell did kirk even become the captain of the PRIDE of the federation fleet? some admiral must have been shooting up
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I loved my second round in this debate. :D
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I love this topic and contemplated starting a similar one months ago. I am a huge fan and happen to personally believe Picard is leaps and bounds above Kirk, but I'll have to actually read is bad boy sometime.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
A rematch would be nice at some point. I'd prefer it was on a (at least slightly) different subject though.
Posted by Pathos 7 years ago
Pathos
Yeah, my last response wasn't as strong as I liked. I ran out of time, didn't do the research I needed to. I would love a rematch in the future if Kinesis was willing to participate. I couldn't find the battles I needed to prove that Picard was a better tactician, and I sure wasn't going to go through the whole TNG series.
I am starting to get the debate structure down now. I think I understand the disadvantages to claiming Pro...
Thanks Kinesis this was fun.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Yeah, but I wouldn't have accepted a debate over intelligence. :D
Posted by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
Also, I believe future debates featuring Picard vs. Kirk, which I would love to read if not participate in, should be narrowed down. A similar debate might be proposed in the category of intelligence, for example. I believe Pro might stand a better chance of supporting a contention that Picard was more intelligent than Kirk.
Posted by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
This was a brilliant debate. I believe Con won, because Pro had the burden of demonstrating that Picard is superior to Kirk. I believe Con was successfully able to defend against this contention and demonstrate that that is not the case. Note that Con did not necessarily have to demonstrate that Kirk is superior to Picard, and did not necessarily demonstrate that to win.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Excellent debate - thank you very much!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
PathosKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
PathosKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Schnebby 7 years ago
Schnebby
PathosKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ThePipes 7 years ago
ThePipes
PathosKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00