The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Star Trek v. Star Wars (Star Trek is Better)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 408 times Debate No: 86302
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Star Trek v. Star Wars. This argument has plagued nerd communities since both of these wonderful series came into being. With the birth of the new Star Trek and Star Wars series, the argument has reignited.

My position is against Star Wars.

Con's is against Star Trek.

Rules of engagement:
-The first round should be used to state our positions on the argument.

-The newsest movies of each series, (Star Trek- Star Trek(2009), Into Darkness. Star Wars- The Force Awakens) are off limits. We are gauging the worth of all series made prior to 2000.

-This debate should be fought with honor. I will not make any attacks towards my opponent, and I expect the same towards me.

I throw the gauntlet.


I accept this debate gladly. I will defend Star Wars to no end!
Debate Round No. 1


Let's get straight to business. First, I shall discuss the Fan base of Star Trek; The Ruination of a Sci-Fi Genre; and Star War's Official Genre.

Contention #1: Star Wars will never have such a devoted fan base as Star Trek. "Nothing fades faster than a canceled television series they say. So how come Star Trek won't go away?" -Associated Press 1972. The answer of this question is simple: Trekkies are and always will be devoted to their cause of Star Trek. This fact is evident when fans complained about a cancelled showing of Star Trek because of the Apollo 11 launch (The first time that the U.S.A.--or anyone on earth-- made it to the moon). The Trekkie fan base was also compared to Beatlemania, a craze which we can both agree is larger than our quarrel.

In 1974, NASA announced their newest shuttle, Constitution. In 1976, so many Trekkies had mailed letters to President Gerald Ford that Ford had no choice but to instruct NASA to change its name to Enterprise.

Contention #2
: Star Trek was a cultural phenomenon, while Star Wars just looked pretty. We all know that Star Wars was a major milestone in cinema, pioneering special effects and plot techniques up the wazoo, but we lack to recognize that Star Wars could have single-handedly ruined an entire genre of movies.

"But here's the thing: George Lucas' creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects, has left all too many people thinking science fiction is some computer graphics-laden space opera/western filled with shootouts, territorial disputes, evil patriarchs and trusty mounts (like the Millennium Falcon)."
-Lewis Beale, writer for CNN

Star Wars has left a sour taste in Hollywood's mouth after its rise to fame. Now every Sci-fi movie to come from Hollywood is based upon a cookie-cutter template: Hot Models, Cool Lasers, CGI, Ships that look like they were never designed to fly. This is a template that was even adopted by the latest Star Trek movies, making them almost identical to a Star Wars movie (why I asked for any movies past the year 2000 to be exempt... They are all the same).

Now, Sci-fi lovers must look to the distant stars for new, exciting ideas. Robot and Frank, Iron Sky, and Mr. Nobody are some of my favorite modern Sci-fi classics; however, these movies are becoming harder and harder to find as time goes on, as the Star Wars virus, a template made only for making money, is spreading.

Contention #3: Star Wars isn't really Sci-fi. Science Fiction is defined by Google as:
noun: science fiction; noun: SF; modifier noun: science-fiction; noun: Sci Fi; plural noun: Sci Fis
  1. fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.

Does Star Wars have anything to do with the Future? No. It's actually the opposite, considering that Star Wars takes place:

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

-Star Wars

Does Star Wars include space or life on other planets? Yes. However, as it is not a requirement (The word "frequently" is used, meaning: a lot, but not always), we must rule it out as a defining element of a Sci-fi film.

Therefore, Star Wars has no defining elemens of a Sci-fi film and cannot be described as a Sci-fi film.

Now, what if we were to disect this a little further? what would we find?

The literal meaning of Science Fiction is fiction based upon science. Seeing as the only science that Star Wars has is the anatomy of the human body (actually, probably not even the "Human" anatomy, but I'll let it slide....), it cannot even be described as a Sci-fi film from this respect.

What is Star Wars then?

This should help:

noun: fantasy
  1. 1.
    the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
    "his research had moved into the realm of fantasy"
    • the product of imagining impossible or improbable things.
      "the scene is clearly fantasy"
    • a fanciful mental image, typically one on which a person dwells at length or repeatedly and which reflects their conscious or unconscious wishes.
      plural noun: fantasies
      "the notion of being independent is a child's ultimate fantasy"
    • an idea with no basis in reality.
      "it is a misleading fantasy to suggest that the bill can be implemented"
    • a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, especially in a setting other than the real world.
    • denoting a competition or league in which participants select imaginary teams from among the players in a real sports league and score points according to the actual performance of their players.
      "he's my second-round draft choice in fantasy baseball this year"

I have Bolded and Underlined the part of most importance: a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, especially in a setting other than the real world.

Does Star Wars have magic? Yes, it's called the Force (Yes, it's magic).

Is Star Wars set on a world other than our own? Yes.

Star Wars is a simple Fantasy.

What does this have to do with my argument? It's simple, The fact that Star Wars is not real, and will never be real is a fact that alienates the saga from people. Society as a whole will never be able to connect with Star Wars. It is a saga about rebellion and war with quick snippets of character developement to loosely bond the characters to the plot so that they will be remembered in the next movie. This interaction between the charachters and the plot is best represented by the beloved Boba Fett. The only reason we really care about Boba is because he was important enough to be introduce midway through Episode V and killed off at the begininng of Episode VI (I know he isn't dead, but the movies made it seem so...). Who really cares about Jango Fett? He got a much more in depth backstory in Episode II (I'm not bagging on Episode II, just using it as an example) than Boba, yet we didn't care when he died because he was introduced and killed off in the same movie.

Star Trek, on the other hand has every possibility of coming true, with the developement of Warp technology on the way and the unification of the world coming. Star Trek even provides key links so that everyday people can relate to characters on the show. Star Trek provides a much deeper backstory to each character of the crew, sometimes spending entire episodes to develope backstory for minor charcters.

I now wait for my opponent to defend his argument.



I feel bad about writing this, but as I read the my opponent's argument, everything fell apart. I nonetheless thank Pro for giving me an opportunity to defend Star Wars.

Contention 1: Action Movie

I was almost certain Pro was going to bring up how Star Trek has so many real-life issues. Even though he didn't, I can still use this to my advantage.

The basis of Star Trek is to provide thought-provoking situations. Don't get me wrong. I love these moral dilemmas. But even more so, Star Wars brings in a much more entertaining aspect: adventure. So many of us want to leave our boring lives and become a hero. Star Wars is precisely that. It is the journey of a young man fighting evil and becoming a hero.

Now, time for my rebuttals to your contentions:

Rebuttal 1: Fan base

Star Trek has a more devout fan base? Really? Who made more money? Who had people coming back on line for the next showing? Who made more money? Who won more awards? Star Wars has. [1]

Please note: Now, I understand that you're going to rebut that most Star Trek movies have been made past 2000's, which are invalid in this debate. This will be a large dispute in this debate, as it is likely T.V. needs to provide a different experience then movie to be successful. We're going to need figure this out to have a successful debate.

Don't get me started on the government and Star Wars. I don't even know how to fully describe this one. Just some things to spot in the link:

-the Star Wars reference in the title
-the abbreviation in third (or fourth if you count the bullet point) paragraph
-almost 35,000 people signed this petition
-several more Star Wars references
-the fact that the government actually bothered to respond to this petition (notable since they don't usually respond to these kind of petitions
-They calculated the price to make it

Here is the link:

Rebuttal 2: Culture

Now, I'm just going to provide a different perspective of what Pro wrote, which I'm kind of confused about. I'm chop this up piecemeal.

"but we lack to recognize that Star Wars could have single-highhandedly ruined an entire genre of movies"
Um, Pro could say that about a lot of things. If Toy Story was terrible, animation might not have the same kind of presence of it does now. Does that hurt Toy Story? No, it makes it all the better.

"Now every Sci-fi movie to come from Hollywood is based upon a cookie-cutter template"
Does this not help my case? All other movies recognize that's what's so great about Star Wars, so they copied it. Not only is it not Star Wars's fault, this shows how great it is.

Contention 3: Sci-fi

I'm going to take a big risk here and fully accept that Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi. Besides for my earlier point on why Star Wars is actually very close to home, here I'll write why Star Wars is pretty much Sci-Fi anyways.

So, I first want to mention how irrelevant when Star Wars takes place to the debate. Think about it: would it have mattered that much is the opening line read "A time in the far away future". How big of an impact does it hold? Admittedly, not that much. It's only enough to disqualified. It's the same idea with the Force, because, um, ...., Forget it. You get this point. I disproved the real argument in my first argument. I'll just refute the other minor points you made.

Boba Fett really represents the epic ability of Star Wars to create the meanest looking villains, only to be killed off in a pathetic way. As I've said before, he whole design of Star Wars isn't necessarily that one sees all villains as conflicted being, but as the embodiment of evilness which the hero fights. He just didn't reap the full potential to be viewed as more evil, because of his death.

Now, I'm going to bring this last argument against my opponent. He says Star Trek has a very possible chance of coming true. While that may be exciting for us, it's bad news for Star Trek. Real life might be equally, if not surpassing, the excitement than the video. Then who needs the video? It will be discarded and forgotten. The point of Sci-Fi is to amaze us with futuristic technology, but if the technology is available, who needs the movie? This is why Star Wars surpasses Star Trek. Star Wars has technology that may never exist, so it will always excite the audience.

I now hand the debate mike back to the phaser-wielding Pro, who's hand is getting awfully tighter around the trigger.

Debate Round No. 2


Diddachus forfeited this round.


Debate Round No. 3


Diddachus forfeited this round.


You said that this debate should be fought with honor. (Spits on a picture of Pro).You disgust me.
Debate Round No. 4


Diddachus forfeited this round.


For mercy, I shalt end thine shame fore'er. I shalt kill thee so the cruel pain of shame shan't harm thee, my good fellow.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rami 8 months ago
Thanks for the votes, guys.
Posted by Rami 8 months ago
Can I accept? I really want this.
Posted by n7 8 months ago
"This debate should be fought with honor."

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.