The Instigator
WrathofGod
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
lvryan
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Star Trek vs Star Wars (Ultimate Nerd Showdown)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+23
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 5 votes the winner is...
WrathofGod
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,501 times Debate No: 14854
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (5)

 

WrathofGod

Pro

It is because I believe while Star Wars began as a great project but became a joke, while Star Trek began as a sci-fi powerhouse and remains to this day unblemished in the eyes of its fans, that I affirm Star Trek as being superior to Star Wars.

1) Star Trek has reinvented itself successfully time and again, while Star Wars has only gotten worse.

When Star Wars burst onto the scene in 1977 it took America by storm. Capitalizing on the era of the space-race, Lucas broke out with a compelling script, memorable characters, and pushed the edges of special effects technology. For his effort Lucas became known as a legendary film maker and became the Pope of the fanboys, but to their chagrin his glory faded.

In the attempted rebirth of the franchise with The Phantom Menace, dedicated Star Wars fans young and old lined up loyally outside theaters to experience the magic as if for the first time. But it was all for naught. Phantom Menace was hokey, plain, and thankfully forgettable. It's plot was weak, and despite its A-list cast the characters were listless and boring. Fans began to wonder if Lucas still had the magic.

By the time Clone Wars came out, fanboys were ready to believe again. Diligently they lined up, and one after one left the theater with balled up fists, and frustrated hearts. How could the movie be so bad that it made them long for more Jar Jar Binks and his pseudo-racist catchphrases? After much pondering, the truth became obvious: Lucas was both the catalyst and cancer to the incredible Star Wars project. Once the anchor of its creativity, he was now the shoals upon which its ship must crash.

Revenge of the Sith was easily the best of the three prequels, but only because the first two were so horrible. Relying upon advanced CGI and special effects to bail itself out, the final chapter in the Star Wars rebirth ended with dazzling fight scenes, and a whining Anakin Skywalker who would forever diminish the dark lord of sci-fi, Darth Vader.

Compare this to Star Trek

Star Trek blew people away with season after season of adventure, romance, and sci-fi ecstacy. Then it pumped out 5 spinoff series that each dominated for years. The Animated Series, The Next Generation, Voyager, Enterprise, Deep Space 9, all of these became staples of Sci-Fi programming, owing their success to the original and foundational concept of Star Trek.

Whle this constant evolution was taking place, Star Trek managed to create 11 feature length films spanning 30 years. Star Wars, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, The Voyage Home, The Final Frontier, The Undiscovered Country, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis all pushed the franchise forward with original characters, compelling plotlines, and ever heightening special effects.

As if that wasn't enough, the series did an entire reboot in 2009 with a whole new cast. Paying homage to the original Star Trek characters while remaining fresh and unique in the eyes of even the most orthodox of old guard fans.

Conclusion: While Star Wars blew the doors off entering the world stage, it has only decayed as time has passed. Star Trek on the other hand has moved forward and by all perceptions is only getting better. Ask yourself this: Who's best days are still ahead of them, Star Wars or Star Trek?

2) "A long time ago, in a galaxy far away" isn't as compelling as "Boldly going where no man has gone before".

The essence of the Star Wars universe is that an advanced cluster of civilizations once upon a time struggled to define their government structure. That's it. Its a politico-melodrama that belongs on a make-believe history channel. In the Star Wars universe, everything you are seeing happened in the past and at such a distance that it can't possibly concern you. It's like watching another country's local news. "Oh no! The Mayor is corrupt and wants to disband the state assembly!?" Who cares?

Star Trek on the other hand isn't based in the past, it's a projection of the future. And its not somebody else's galaxy far far away, its ours. Its our children's children's children, following the exploring nature of the human spirit and persisting through the perils of open space. It's not rooted in some make believe religion that only exists in our wildest imaginations, its a plausible futuristic narrative in which mankind is no longer Earth bound, and the universe is being discovered.

Conclusion: While Star Wars asks us to be interested in the politics of an ancient civilization in a distant galaxy, Star Trek asks us to imagine our own human future, and what our species may one day experience.


3) The-Nerd-Factor

Perhaps the quintessential weighing mechanism to determine the superior franchise is to analyze the nature of their fan base. Who's fans are more dedicated, who's fans are more nerdy?

Star Wars fans have a rich and noble tradition of nose bleeds and masking taped glasses, but this heritage has been lost to the endless oceans of elementary school lunch boxes, rated E video games, and child sized haloween costumes. In short, Star Wars is now a sci-fi for little kids. Look no further than the current success of Star Wars' animated series on Cartoon Network as proof (it's not even on Adult Swim).

Star Wars die hards now stand shamed next to hoards of drooling, screaming, infantile fans who's parents see this as an opportunity to get their kids interested in something cartoony and harmless. Much of this forsaken fandom is owed to the overindulging mechandising of George Lucas, and his endless appitite to earn money even at the expense of his once respected franchise.

Even the most ardent Star Wars fan feels used walking out of a convention, and feels like they were in line for a Justin Bieber concert when they showed up for the prequels.

On the other hand...

Star Trek fans were and continue to be the weakest, dorkiest, most asthmatic tribe in the nerd-i-verse. Attend a convention and you will find that patrons easily speak Klingon (another feature Star Wars lacks, its own language), are armed with home-made phaser weapons, and most are in a Stephen Hawking book club.

Star Trek is not for the faint of heart, or the weak minded. It is a determined, difficult, and dynamic work of science fiction that commands respect in the geek-world and has not become the watered down toddler-fest of Star Wars. Star Trek has self respect, and its fans hold their heads high while Star Wars fans navigate a sea of snot-nosed, plastic toy wielding, little runts.

Conclusions: In 2011, Star Wars is what you like when you are just getting into to sci-fi, Star Trek is what you like when you're a grown up. And the nerd factor? Forget about it. Even jocks laughingly wear Jedi robes and poke one another with phallically inspired light sabers. But when is the last time you saw the prom queen or the starting quarterback sporting a Star Wars uniform with official ensignia? Nerd advantage: Star Trek.
lvryan

Con

The notion of having an argument comparing two sci-fi juggernauts on their merit of being superior to one another is ludicrous. Every nerd in America will agree with the points that you made regarding Star Wars for it's common knowledge that the saga has run out of steam in recent years. What you fail to realize however is that the powerhouse known as Star Wars was never intended for adults while Star Trek explicitly was. As the fans who grew older, they expected the movies to grow with them in plot maturity. When the prequels were released, they were saddened to see that the movies were made this generation's children and not them.

Comparing these two factions of sci-fi is like comparing Harry Potter and The Wizard of Oz, sure they're both fantasy, but that's where the comparison ends.

1)Star Trek has reinvented itself successfully time and again, while Star Wars has only gotten worse.

1. You are argue that Star Wars capitalized on the space race of the era when truthfully the space race ended in 1975, a full two years after A New Hope was released. Sure, space was still a hot topic, but not nearly as publicized during that time. Compare this to Star Trek which debuted in 1966 during the height of the Space Race and you can clearly see which series capitalized on the era.

2. The 2009 reboot of Star Trek may have paid great "homage to the original Star Trek characters" in some aspects, but ultimately it destroyed the continuity of the original series and showed that the Star Trek universe is non-consequential. One film proved that forty years of history could be rewritten within a two hour film.

3. While Star Trek may have had one film to showcase its self-reinvention, Star Wars has had 30 years of continued success through films, tv shows, merchandising and a dedicated fan base. While fans may not agree on the merits of the prequels, Lucas proved that he was reinventing his universe for a brand new generation by targeting the demographic he initially found success with. Sure Jar Jar Binks is one of the worst characters in movie history and Anakin Skywalker had amazingly terrible dialogue, but if you really watch the OT, you'll notice that the characters were just as cheesy and Mark Hamill's acting wasn't much better, Lucas was merely paying homage to him.

Conclusion: You argue that Star Trek has reinvented itself while Star Wars has not. I argue the opposite in the fact that Star Wars is reinventing itself to a brand new generation of children through a TV show, action figures and novels.

2) "A long time ago, in a galaxy far away" isn't as compelling as "Boldly going where no man has gone before".

This point has no relevance as to what saga is better. If you really get down to it, Star Wars is more of a projection of humanity than Star Trek by showcasing the policies that govern a nation/universe. Sure, Trek embodies the explorer characteristics in which this nation was founded on, Star Wars details the way a civilized land is run. Again, this point has no relevance to the argument.

3) The-Nerd-Factor

You argue that "Star Wars fans have a rich and noble tradition of nose bleeds and masking taped glasses, but this heritage has been lost to the endless oceans of elementary school lunch boxes, rated E video games, and child sized haloween costumes. In short, Star Wars is now a sci-fi for little kids." You fail to realize that Star Wars has always been a sci-fi for little kids. Do you think it's a new fad for there to be merchandising for this series? Of course not! Han Solo was supposed to die in Empire Strikes Back. That's right, Irvin Kershner wanted to kill him off in the carbonite chamber on Cloud City. However, Lucas wouldn't let him because he wanted to make more action figures for Han Solo was one of the most popular.

The fact that there is now a Cartoon Network animated series for Star Wars doesn't damper this nerd factor, it enhances it, as well as the credibility of Star Wars. You see, the series has never tried to be something it isn't, it's continued for 30 years to be a child-oriented sci-fi program, an entry level saga. You can't knock it for maintaining mainstream success for all of these years!

My arguments:

1) Star Trek Never Had A Memorable Villain That Has Permeated Mainstream Culture

Sure, Star Trek had some great villainy in the form of Klingon and Borg, but there wasn't a single villain that permeated mainstream culture with a formidable presence. I now what you're thinking, what about KHAN?! Sure, Shatner screaming KHAAAAAAN as made the rounds on the internet for ages, but it's only for the lols. Now, Star Wars on the other hand has a villain so distinguished that the mere outline of his domed helmet and heavy breathing sends waves of nostalgia. Darth Vader is the epitome of a great villain and continues to resonate in the minds of all that have seen him on the big screen. Now, many may argue that his back story was muddied with the prequels and I'd have to agree, but I'm not talking about his back story, I'm just talking about his appearances in the OT and how great of a villain he truly was.

2) The Expanded Universe Is Lush

If one is to truly argue the merits of Star Wars, the exanded universe (EU) needs to be brought up as it is just as much of the Star Wars canon as the movies. The novelization of this universe has created a lush and living environment that has thrilled millions of fans by telling stories of characters that weren't given enough screen time in the movies. Which brings me to my next point.

3) Boba Fett

'Nuff said.
Debate Round No. 1
WrathofGod

Pro

Responses to Con's Counterpoints

1.1- First, you can't tell me when exactly the space race era was, it was a cultue of scientific competition that pervaded decades, not just until we "won" by getting to the moon. Second, Star Trek didn't "capitalize" on the space race, it was an honest expression of the American culture that became fascinated by space. Star Wars on the other hand merely capitalized on Star Trek's success. Star Trek blazed the trail. Originality Advantage-Trek.

1.2- At first, I was outraged when the reboot hit delete on the entire Star Trek history and restarted. But then when I was re-watching the film again, Spock (Leonard Nimoy) said something that helped. He pointed out it was an alternate universe, not a redux, hence why the Original Spock did not cease to exist or dissapear.

Further, if you consider how far Star Trek has already moved forward (see my original argument about spin offs) you see that it has more than proven its ability to move forward and leave the original characters far behind. What's neat about the reboot is that it provides an alternate universe in which Vulcan isn't there to be the shining light of reason in the galaxy, effectively plunging the future of the Star Trek-verse into a darkages.

And Trek isn't the first to try this. I refer you to the Marvel-universe and their several experiments with alternate universes. Star Trek is well within its rights in the reboot.

1.3- "While Star Trek may have had one film to showcase its self-reinvention, Star Wars has had 30 years of continued success through films, tv shows, merchandising and a dedicated fan base." First off, this is just a false statement. Star Trek didn't reinvent in one film, it's been reinventing all along (see my original argument about spinoffs in Television and the movies). Second, Star Wars has had much commercial success, but none of it was artistic or nerd-worthy. You can't praise Star Wars as superior and merely cite Lucas' financial gluttony as a virtue. George Lucas would sell his soul (and has on several artistic occasions) if it means one more dollar. And the "dedicated fan base" you speak of hoard of little kids, which you freely admit later in your rebuttle.

Conclusion: Star Wars has not reinvented, it has imploded. George Lucas has only repackaged and remarketed a familiar merchandise to solicit to a new generation, this doesn't make the series noble, worth-while, or in any sense superior.

2.1- Waving your hand at me and saying "this argument is irrelevant" doesn't work in real life young Jedi. Your just running away from something you have no answer for, and without your make believe force you have no power to overcome it.

My point was that Star Trek is more relevant to the human condition because it's universe and theme more closely resemble real life, whereas Star Wars uses an imaginary force to form a critique on anti-democratic government. Trek on the other hand is more interested at its core, indulging the limitless imagination of the viewer and encouraging creative thinking about what might lie ahead of us. Star Wars on the other hand wants to shove a make believe dogma into the socio-philosophical debates of 2,000 years ago and call it sci-fi. I call it boring.

Conclusion: Star Trek is more relevant from its core thesis, Star Wars belongs on a make believe history shelf.

3.1- I fail to see how you agreeing with me that Star Wars is juvenile and George Lucas is a soul-less whore does anything to give Star Wars superiorty over Star Trek. You're right, I guess, George Lucas cares so little for the integrity and depth of his story that he will make sweeping cuts in it to ensure he gets more money on toy sales. You're right again, I guess, Star Wars finds that the audience which best matches its content is elementary school kids who are more interested in the glowing green sticks and pod-racers than they are the plot. This points don't help your case, they embarass your supporters.

3.2- Yes I can knock it for being a mainstream success at the cost of maintaining fideltiy to a convincing plot, worthwhile characters, and quality movies. Justin Bieber is a mainstream success too, does that mean he's superior to James Taylor? I think all Star Wars fans winced reading your argument's in this "its cool to be a sellout" line of thought. They hope that the series they have placed so much interest and esteem in is more than just some cheap sales ploy gettings its casting ques from Tyco.

Conclusion: We are in agreement that Star Wars is nothing more than a marketing ploy by a greedy George Lucas who targets little kids. The only difference is I think this doesn't make Star Wars better, my opponent would like to have a parade to celebrate.

Response to Con's Case

1.1-Darth Vader was an excellent Villain, until Lucas reduced him to a whiny teary-eyed runt in the prequels We were supposed to witness the evolution of pure evil, instead we watched the endless turmoil of an incessant wah-a-thon blabbering about how it sucks to not be taken seriously, sucks to not be allowed to do what you want to do, and sucks to have to listen to others. Darth Vader was devolved from a limitless, fearless, unpredictable bad-A, to a teary-eyed, red-faced, hyperventilating, self-absorbed kid.

1.2-Star Trek did have Kahn, who really was an awesome villain. But unlike Star Wars, Trek is able to bring in fresh and unique villainy. For over 30 years Star Wars fans have dribbled over the menacing Darth Vader and his evil Sith collegues, whil Star Trek has innovated and installed new and freightening challenges for its heroes to face. Kahn, the Klingon, the Borg, the Ramulens, Q, Hugh, the Nexus, the Dominion, the "conspiracy" bugs, all have had their own unique dimensions and dasterdliness which Star Wars bottles up in only one bad-guy, who turns out to be a brat in a black costume.

2.1- Star Trek and Star Wars even out on the extended universe argument. Both have shelves of books written by all manner of authors. Both are able to extend their universe's history and find interesting aspects that develop the story. This is a push.

3.1- As compelling as Boba is, Jar Jar easily cancels him out (and then some).

3.2- 7 of 9.


lvryan

Con

1.1 - The originality advantage can hardly be awarded to Star Trek when science fiction has been a popular aspect of literature for hundreds of years. It's no secret that man has been fascinated by the moon/stars since the beginning of time and early novelists realized this. This fascination culminated in the 50s when serials were introduced and regularly focused on alien visitors. Fast forward to 1965 and Star Trek is introduced to American television viewers, a tv show that is according to you, wholly original. Let's face it, Star Trek and Star Wars are science fiction, a genre that is hugely over produced and capitalized on whether in literature or film. Originality advantage goes to neither saga and does nothing to prove your original point that Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

1.2 You originally praise the Star Trek reboot for "[p]aying homage to the original Star Trek characters while remaining fresh and unique in the eyes of even the most orthodox of old guard fans." In your counterpoint, you say "it has more than proven its ability to move forward and leave the original characters far behind." So what exactly is the merit of the reboot? The fact that it pays homage to the original series or that it leaves them in the past? The characters of Star Wars are rich and diverse and still captivate audiences 30 years later.

Bad example, Marvel's multiverse wasn't introduced until the 2000s while DC Comics has been around since the 80s and offers a much more lush environment.

1.3 Please expand on this argument and why my counter was false. Sure, Star Trek: The Next Generation was introduced new characters and brand new 'trek' but did nothing to reinvent the original series. As I said, this was done in the reboot of 2009.

As far as Star Wars being a "commercial success, but [not] artistic or nerd-worthy" is preposterous. The Clone Wars Animated Series that aired from 2003-2005 on Cartoon Network featured artwork by Genndy Tartakovsky, a true artist and master mind behind Samurai Jack. The art direction behind this series was outstanding and featured new and original content that disproves your theory that Star Wars hasn't reinvented itself.

2.1 Sure, Star Trek is based on the natural human need to explore and one of the natural facets of Star Wars is that of political dealings. Beside the point that no other piece of science fiction has dealt with political matters at a universal level, there's also the fact that Star Wars is based more on the human condition than Star Trek could ever hope to achieve. Every aspect of Star Wars was based on an era of World History, tying it more so to this world than you though. For example, the notion of Jedis were based on the ancient Samurai techniques and fighting styles. Stormtroopers are based on Nazis and the Empire is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in general. This is me just scratching the surface of the real world comparisons. You might argue that this makes Star Wars unoriginal, but I argue that it enhances its real world appeal by tying a far off galaxy with out own. Your conclusion: "Star Trek is more relevant from its core thesis, Star Wars belongs on a make believe history shelf." I argue that Star Wars belongs on our history shelf, creating a text book of allusions.

3.1 I think you've missed my point altogether. Star Wars is a series made for kids and you fail to realize it. The popularity stems from children finding these movies at a young age and falling in love with the visuals, characters and storyline. Sure, as one ages, the gaps in the story are more apparent, the over-commercialization becomes intrusive and the prequels disappoint. However, the joy comes full circle when one geek shows their children the joy of Star Wars and the child-like wonder returns.

3.2 See above.

--------------

1.1 You are referring to Anakin Skywalker in your argument who I agree "is an incessant wah-a-thon." Darth Vader is the villain I was talking about, the one that strangles a Rebel to death within the first five minutes of A New Hope. And yes, these are two completely different characters.

2.1 "Kahn, the Klingon, the Borg, the Ramulens, Q, Hugh, the Nexus, the Dominion, the "conspiracy" bugs, all have had their own unique dimensions and dasterdliness which Star Wars bottles up in only one bad-guy, who turns out to be a brat in a black costume."

The true villain is the Empire and not Darth Vader. Vader was simply brainwashed and manipulated into becoming a Sith Lord. On top of this, Star Wars is so much more than Vader and offers a lush backdrop of creatures and villains that outweigh the examples you provided from Trek. From 4-Lom and Zuckuss to Dengar and IG-88, the Bounty Hunter rogue gallery alone is massive and impressive.

3.1 One character cannot cancel out another, especially in films twenty years apart. Boba Fett is one of the coolest characters in film history and nothing from Star Trek comes close. However, the horribleness that is Jar Jar Banks is met and exceeded in so many characters of Trek that it is pathetic. Whoopi Golderg as Guinan. Really?!

3.2 Sure 7 of 9 was an attractive female but what did she really bring to the game besides getting nerds like you off the couch and into a vat of Shea butter?

When it really comes down to it the better saga is awarded to which ever you personally grew up with and this nulls your initial argument that one series is better than the other. If however, you still wish to argue, then keep this mind. Millenium Falcon > USS Enterprise.
Debate Round No. 2
WrathofGod

Pro

1.1- Thanks for the history lesson. Now that we have all learned something, let's get back to the argument I made that still stands a few feet to the left of where you have wasted all this ammunition.

Star Trek predates Star Wars, it demonstrated the financial solvency of the genre and encouraged the development of the Star Wars movies. Heck, its the probably the reason 21st Century Fox gave the thumbs up to Lucas in the first place. Let me use an anology to make my point. Sure there were all sorts of battles and armies before WWI, but WWI directly lead to WWII. I'm not denying that Sci-Fi existed pre Star Trek, I denying that Star Wars did. Star Trek wins the originality argument.

1.2- You are mixing your misquotes. I said the reboot paid homage while achieving original flavor, and the Star Trek dynasty has managed to evolve over time even past the need for the original characters.

Further, when you say "The characters of Star Wars are rich and diverse and still captivate audiences 30 years later." you are only making my point for me. Star Wars has never moved beyond its original characters (except in the expanded universe) in 30 years. It's stale and dormant and empty. Nobody cares because the book is closed, while Star Trek continues to have an unknown future where anything goes.

Also your comeback on Marvel was weak, my point was that its fair game for Sci Fi to use alternate reality, not whether Batman is better than Wolverine (which by the way, needs to be our next debate).

Star Trek wins the evolution argument.

1.3- When I say "art" I don't mean drawings. I mean that ethereal phenomena that causes us to see something deeper than the special effects or the tightly coiled buns on Carrie Fisher's head. The Star Wars cartoons hardly measure up, they were aimed at kids and had the depth of a fisher price swimming pool.

Further, if this is Star Wars' last best hope at reinvention, getting a 2 season cancelled series on a kid's channel, then I think you have sealed the win for Star Trek.

Star Trek wins the reinvention argument.

2.1- You say "Every aspect of Star Wars was based on an era of World History, tying it more so to this world than you though." While I find this statement accurate (especially the part about George Lucas' Sci-Fi movies having more connection with the natural world that I, a mere flesh and blood human, does), I also find it to be misguided.

Star Wars doesn't present it's audience with a carefully historical, faithfully accurate amalgamation of past philosophies. It offers a gross, cartoonish, cariacature. Like some sort of freshman level history 101 mad-lib. "So the (insert religious warriors) use the (insert religious object) to overcome the (insert scary foreign military power) and save the (insert currently dominant form of government). The End." Feel free to plug in anything into those blanks and you have the basic recipe for Star Wars.

Star Trek on the other hand doesn't rip it's script off reruns from the History Channel. It doesn't replay the tired old story we learned in school while only substituting star-ships for tanks and death-stars for Berlin and Jedi for the trusty American heroes. Star Trek puts a fresh and original script out there, and while I'm sure it draws on the past, it doesn't try to dress it up in white plastic suits and hit replay. For crying out loud Lucas didn't even change the name "Storm Trooper". Crikey. Star Trek wins the future vs past argument.

2.1.1- And this by the way raises another point. In Star Wars there are glaring inconsistencies, which are probably the inadvertant remants of Lucas' hodgepodge of poorly studied history. For instance, in "Revenge of the Sith" in the "epic" final battle between Obi Wan and Anakin, Anakin threatens Obi Wan and declares that either Ben is with him, or against him. Obi Wan reflects on how only Sith use absolutes, and so he must provide Anakin with a laser-blade amputation. But am I the only one who saw the problems in this?

Obi Wan reflects on his absolute conclusion (that all Sith are bad) as he condemns Anakin for doing the same thing. "Gee, well, I KNOW that ABSOLUTELY all Sith are evil, and I also know that ONLY dirty stinking Sith speak the way I just did, so it's time to kill Anakin". What the heck?

This again is why Star Trek is better. Trek often explores the perspective of the perceived enemy. The Borg are spared by Captain Picard because he refuses to commit genocide and annihlate a sentient race, realizing that while the Borg are dangerous, their merely propogating their species the only way they know how. The Klingon eventually integrate with the federation. The Ramulens go back and forth. Even Spock and Jim Kirk begin as enemies. This multi-dimensional approach satisfies an adult hunger for depth and real world character development. Star Trek fans are too mature for this "everybody who uses absolutes is absolutely evil" B.S.

Star Trek wins the not being a contradicting self righteous flaming bag of poo argument.

3.1- Stop talking about enjoying little children and just drop this argument. Star Wars is for kids and Star Trek is for grown ups. You can't redeem that and somehow turn it into a good thing. It's not. Also, the guy in the comments section makes a great point, remember how scary "IT" (that clown movie with the guy from Rocky Horror) was when we were 9? Would you really put it up there with Saw? Let's let a 9 year old decide.

Star Trek wins the adult nerds of the world and this is without a doubt the most valuable voting issue of the round.

1.1- It must be nice to reject Star Trek's use of alternate reality and then live in one yourself. Apparently you live in a place where Darth Vader isn't Luke's father (spoiler alert, lol, oops a little late on that one) and where the scary guy in the black suit isn't really Haden Christiansen with a James Earl Jones voice modifier. Nice try. Darth is ruined when you pull back the mask and find the kid from Jumper. Just like the Wizard of Oz isn't omnipotent when you see its some old guy behind a curtain. Star Wars has no villain argument.

2.1- While I'm willing to concede that apparently everything Star Wars does is "lush", I am surprised at how fast you just abandoned your bad boy Darth Vader. Last round you couldn't wait to trot him around like a prized pony, now its not really him who's the villain, but the scary old guy in the blanket. Give me a break.

Star Trek concedes the "lush" argument, but wins the villain argument.

3.1- Yes it can, and yes he does. Jar Jar ruined Boba the way Hitler ruined Nietzche. And back off Whoopi, at least she can get work (unlike the rest of the cast of Star Wars, minus Harrison).

3.2.2- Youre high if you think the falcon would stand a chance against the Enterprise. It's like comparing a row-boat to the Titanic (minus the lucky icebergs).
lvryan

Con

1.1 - Although you keep saying that Star Trek wins the "originality argument," I'm not sure you fully understand just how wrong that is. The success of Star Wars has nothing to do with Star Trek in the least bit. You see, Star Trek: The Original Series only ran from 1966 to 1969, a measly three season run. I really doubt that Fox would base their decision on green lighting Star Wars due to a cheesy tv show that ran for three years. Please let up on this "originality argument" when you fully know that science fiction has been a staple of literature for hundreds of years. If not, please refer to my run through in the second round.
1.2- Why should a series reinvent their original characters in order to captivate audiences? You are under the assumption that it's a necessary progression to get rid of original characters and introduce new ones in order for something to be integrated into one's psyche. You see, in my eyes, it's quite the opposite. I feel like a series should carry on with their original characters and build on the relationships internally. When a series continuously introduces new characters, it shows that the writers have run out of ideas on how to build these characters up which was proven in Deep Space Nine. These characters were not interesting to begin with and then further driven into the ground.
I'm not sure we can see eye to eye on this point as I believe that the character development of loved characters is an admirable way to build a series, while you believe that new characters need to be continuously introduced to fuel your A.D.D-fueled cinema viewing.
1.3 - You say that my comeback regarding Marvel is "weak" but it completely illustrates this argument. You are arguing that Star Trek is better than Star Wars simply because it came before it, but when you try to illustrate this point, you bring up the argument of an alternate reality from Marvel instead of DC. DC's alternate reality came long before Marvel's and is fully fleshed out while Marvel just recently instated theirs to counter act that of DC's. In your eyes, these two comics' foray into alternate universes is interchangeable and if you truly cared for the originator then you'd realize that DC's was more important. Instead, you care less which came first. Why is it then that Star Trek breaking onto the scene before Star Wars is so important to you? Obviously you've proved that it doesn't matter which came first in other categories (alternate realities) but in this argument you've continuously brought up this point really trying to make everyone believe that Star Trek is better than Star Wars just for coming out first, a completely irrelevant point.
1.4- "When I say "art" I don't mean drawings. I mean that ethereal phenomena that causes us to see something deeper than the special effects or the tightly coiled buns on Carrie Fisher's head. The Star Wars cartoons hardly measure up, they were aimed at kids and had the depth of a fisher price swimming pool."
Sure, when you say art you may mean one thing, but art is such a broad term that you can't cheapen one facet just because you deem an animated series unworthy. The fact is that this series was artistic and beautiful. You also say that the animated series is "aimed at kids" which is basically a rehash of what I had originally said.
Please enlighten me as to how Star Trek can be deemed artistic in the least bit. While Star Wars has been reimagined from an artistic perspective in many different forms, such as cartoons, art pieces, songs, etc, Star Trek continues to be reimagined as tv shows and movies. Since you brought this point up, please point out the artistic merits of Star Trek.
1.5 - "Further, if this is Star Wars' last best hope at reinvention, getting a 2 season canceled series on a kid's channel, then I think you have sealed the win for Star Trek."
Sure, this cancellation after two seasons is no comparison to the Original Series being canceled after three seasons, The Animated Series after two seasons or Star Trek: Enterprise after four seasons.
2.1- All this point was aiming to do was counteract your point that Star Wars doesn't relate to our earthly existence while Star Trek does. Whether you agree with the way it does or not is irrelevant.
2.1.1- For thousands of years, the Jedi Order taught the importance of keeping the peace while battling the ever-rising threat of the Sith. Revenge of the Sith is the culmination of this battle and the instance in which the Jedi Order as it stood for thousands of years, falls to the Sith. Of course Obi-Wan did what he did, he just saw the destruction of the one institution he believed in beyond a doubt and the betrayal of Senator Palpatine as he called Order 66 to action effectively killing every comrade he had ever had. For the first time in his life, Obi-Wan thought instinctively without meditating with the Force flowing within him. This point actually proves that he did not think in absolutes, it's safe to say that the Dark Side was flowing within him as he left his past-Padawan learner to die. This isn't the first time the series showcased this either, Mace Windu was known to deal in the Dark Side which is why his saber was Purple and at the beginning of Return of the Jedi, Luke is seen in black garb, a true indicator of the Dark Side as he had been having an internal struggle after the events of Shadows of the Empire and the carbon freezing of his friend.
3.1- Of course "IT" isn't going to be as scary as an adult as it was when you were a 9 year old kid, but it still leaves a lasting impression. That's the same with Star Wars and Star Trek, these series impact the psyche of those that have watched them as children, a lasting impression that has fueled this very debate we are having.
1.1- It is safe to say that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are two completely different characters in the Star Wars saga. Skywalker was a weak-minded Jedi that was manipulated by the Emperor and caused to die on the lava-filled planet of Mustafar at the end of Revenge of the Sith. When the Emperor found him and put him in the iconic suit, the humanity of Skywalker was dead and all that lived was Darth Vader.
2.1- I haven't abandoned Darth Vader as the most highlighted villain in the Star Wars saga, I was merely attempting to showcase the immense talent that makes up the universe as you have not truly given credit while trying to flaunt those of the Star Trek universe. Let's face it, the villains of Star Wars are more memorable, colorful and interesting than those of Star Trek.
3.1- You didn't talk about the merits of 7 of 9 as a character; instead you tried to avert the attention to Whoopi and the cast of Star Wars. Please, can you enlighten me as to why 7 of 9 is a valuable character to the Star Trek universe besides being eye candy as you initially brought it up as? And before you bring up Slave Leia, she was a Princess immensely important to the overarching story long before the gold bikini.
3.2.2- Millenium Falcon completed the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, this is fact. It has speed on its side as well as a smaller infrastructure. If Han and Chewie, or Lando depending on who was piloting, sealed the cockpit blocking anyone from beaming onboard while effectively destroying the Enterprise with auto-pilot gun turrets, modified quad laser cannons, concussion missles and lightning guns. There would be no chance of locking on to such a small ship while outmaneuvering the Enterprise and eventually all systems would shut down. So yes, the Falcon is a better ship inside and out.
Debate Round No. 3
WrathofGod

Pro




So I just wrote a huge response, and then my computer ate it. I'm not doing it again. So here is the incredibly short version with added sass because its 12:45 am and I am so mad that this all deleted I can't see straight.

1.1- Sputnik lasted for 3 months and launched an American space program that persists to this day. You can't measure something's impact merely by the time it was present (Jesus was only around for 3 years too, coincidence, I think not).

1.2- Star Trek took its original characters to depths Star Wars couldn't accomplish even if its audience did have an adult attention span. Trek's original cast appears in 10 feature length films, and 79 original episodes, for a total of 68 continuous cut and edited hours of story. Trust me, the writers explored. Then moved on to a whole new cast, and made that into a whole new success. Accomplished an entertainment feat never duplicated. How many movies were the original characters of Star Wars in again? 3?

1.3- Before my internet ruined my original response, I had dedicated like 8 paragraphs to making fun of you here. But now I am too tired, and all my wit is gone, so here it goes:

Youre stupid. I win. Shut up.

[Cmon Wrath, try harder.]

Ok, listen. I originally said that the Trek reboot was awesome. You said it wasn't because they used time travel which deleted the old story. I corrected you and said it was an alternate universe. You said alternate univereses were weak. I corrected you again noting that other Sci-Fi's have done it too, including Marvel. You were at this point abducted by aliens and replaced with a drone who didn't understand what the line of argument was, so your new alien host argued that D.C. Comics is better than Marvel. After I got my eyes back in my head from how random this come back was, I responded by noting that nobody cares and that doesn't matter. Your latest argument for how awesome DC Comics is really only leaves me to wonder when the Alien is going to go away. Because he's a stupid face and I hate him.

1.4- If art by your standard has to mean drawings then so be it. Star Trek had an animated series too. There ya go. I still think Trek has more artistic depth in its story and its plot and its themes.

1.5- 11 Feature length films. 726 episodes. 30 years. Suck it.

2.1- Star Trek is more realistic, FTW.

2.1.1- That's really cool that you know the entire Star Wars history. It's also really irrelevant to my point. Star War's is an inconsistent pile of poo written to entertain and not interact with a discerning mind. So Obi Wan uses absolutes when he decries them. And no you can't pull the ole Star Wars standby and go running to the force to explain everything. It's just bad writing.

3.1- You know what else impacts the psyche's of little kids? You, ya stinking pedofile. Star Trek wins because it only hits on viewers who are 18+, or something like that I don't know I'm tired.

1.1- No it's not.

2.1- Yes you did.

3.1- You didn't talk about Boba either. At least 7 of 9 is easy on the eyes.

3.2- "Isn't a parsec a unit of distance, not time?" -Chris Griffin

The enterprise would swat the falcon like a fly. It's not even David vs. Goliath. Its David vs a STATE OF THE ART SPACESHIP CITY WITH ENOUGH GUNS AND AMMO AND TECHNOLOGY TO BLOW YOUR WOOKIE BRAINS OUT..

Vote for the Pro, because Star Trek is superior. You can still like Star Wars if that's your personal favorite, but by all measurements in our debate, Star Trek is better.

Even though I phoned this round in, I think I put up enough of a show in the other rounds to more than make up for this. And, my smart-mouthed, snarky, short answer style in this round is pithy and sarcastic and other synonyms I found in my thesaurus for witty. So I win because you like reading my parts of the debate more. And you know it.

Live long and prosper. Or don't, I don't care.

lvryan

Con

My opponent has decided to withdraw from reason and rather take to the stage for comedic theatrics in the hopes that you wouldn't see his shortcomings. Please don't let this sway your vote. I'm not going to continue arguing the same things we've been going back and forth on, it's getting tired and repititive and quite frankly, I don't see a point as you are going to vote for the series that you feel closest to. So, in the interest in time, I present you with this:

Vote Pro if you believe without a doubt that Star Trek is better than Star Wars and any other piece of Science Fiction out there including classics such as Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, etc as my opponent obviously cannot see beyond the fact that there are other pieces of Sci Fi out there beyond Star Wars and Star Trek.

Vote Con if you do not live in a cave and realize that Science Fiction has been around for hundreds of years and debating the merits of Star Wars and Star Trek is irrelevant. Like I said before, one series is only better to oneself when it was introduced at a young, impressionable age. Star Trek is not better than Star Wars and Star Wars is not better than Star Trek.

Take the high road, vote con.

Don't forget, who ever loses this debate must appear on the weekly web series, NERDLOCKER!, and admit their defeat dressed in the garb argued by the other. Check out www.nerdlocker.com for the results!
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thetallest1 4 years ago
thetallest1
yeah! star trek! my sister has made tribbles! live long and prosper fool!
Posted by dhamner74 4 years ago
dhamner74
I didn't like Star Trek 2009. Star Trek is about adventure and exploration, not sex and fighting. I can't choose between the two because they both are amazing.
Posted by mickeymccarrick 5 years ago
mickeymccarrick
my point of view star wars is better because i love light sabers
Posted by Joedeath161 5 years ago
Joedeath161
True fans of Star Wars and Star Trek wouldn't even try to debate about them because they are both amazing without comparison.
Posted by BluePine 5 years ago
BluePine
heh I feel more geekerish just for reading the first two rounds of this
Posted by Poltergeist 6 years ago
Poltergeist
To be fair you are correct about Starwars getting worse, personally I think George Lucas hates what he created and is trying to destroy it, and you are also correct about Star Trek getting better, however it was so very bad in the beginning that it could not possibly get any worse.
Posted by Teash 6 years ago
Teash
I'm no nerd but i watched all the Star Wars movies and most of Star Trek. I could only sit through the original Star Wars but the new ones were slow and that is hard to pay attention to. Star Wars is great for kids but when you grow up you will spend the other 4/5ths of your life watching Star Trek, for the realism. Not only realism in the sense of animation, special effects, or characters. Realism in the sense of how our society can turn into this serious fight for peace in an inter-galactic setting. Any real exterial-terrestrial beleiver would understand the inspiration behind Star Trek.
Posted by lvryan 6 years ago
lvryan
That's right it was, Dec.

What should our next topic be?
Posted by Mr_Nineteen 6 years ago
Mr_Nineteen
Yeah guys. This debate was super serious.
Posted by Sottaceti 6 years ago
Sottaceti
Don't use the words 'I' and 'believe' in conjunction in any debate, ever. With perpetual timidness eventually comes fall; it is cold, and it is harsh.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Spaztoid 6 years ago
Spaztoid
WrathofGodlvryanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In the long run, personal bias did factor into my vote. I started with Star Trek as the preference, and Con didn't persuade me otherwise. I thus pass WrathofGod my vote.
Vote Placed by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
WrathofGodlvryanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I like star wars
Vote Placed by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
WrathofGodlvryanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: "Vote Pro if you believe without a doubt that Star Trek is better than Star Wars and any other piece of Science Fiction out there..." I don't think Star Trek is better than any other science fiction ever... It's just better than Star Wars.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
WrathofGodlvryanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: "Kahn, the Klingon, the Borg, the Ramulens, Q, Hugh, the Nexus, the Dominion, the "conspiracy" bugs, all have had their own unique dimensions and dasterdliness which Star Wars bottles up in only one bad-guy, who turns out to be a brat in a black costume. " owned
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
WrathofGodlvryanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I like Star Trek, and con couldn't persuade me that Star Wars was better, therefore, convincing arguments goes to Pro.