The Instigator
BennyW
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Technologically speaking, the Star Trek Universe is more advanced than the Star Wars Universe

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...
BennyW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,150 times Debate No: 36949
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

BennyW

Pro

I will argue that Star Trek is more technologically advanced than Star Wars. To do this though I will have to set some parameters. Since Star Trek spans such a long period of time I will set specifically which era I want to compare and the same with Star Wars. The technology of Star Trek the original series will be compared to the Original Star Wars trilogy, and the technology of the Enterprise era will be compared to the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Other Star Trek series' can be brought up as a point of comparison and to show how technology progresses. Additional, all information must come from official movies and TV shows and not the expanded universe. The first round is for acceptance only.
ConservativePolitico

Con

The nerd and avid fan of both these series in me could not resist the urge to take this.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
BennyW

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
I will use a side by side comparison of analogous technologies and capabilities.

Speed
Many Star Wars fans will claim that Star Wars ships are faster. I don't know where they get this idea but it is simply false. In A New Hope Obi Wan Claims that the Millennium Falcon can make “point five past light speed”. And that is supposed to be fast? In Star Trek, Warp 1 is light speed and Enterprise in the series Enterprise can go warp 5 and the Enterprise in The Original series can go much faster; the Millennium Falcon would be slow in the Star Trek Universe as Warp 1 is the same as light speed [1] It would likely be brought up that in the Star Wars Galaxy traversing the Galaxy takes a matter of hours to days while in Star Trek it takes at least decades to cross a quarter of the Galaxy, even by the time of Voyager it takes 75 years. The reason for that is that the Star Wars Galaxy must be a micro Galaxy while Star Trek takes place in our own Milky Way. This difference is all the more radical when you consider in Enterprise, humans had only had warp capabilities for less than 100 years, and yet they were already better than the Star Wars Universe which had had interplanetary travel for at least 1000 Generations. Obi Wan Mentions that the Jedi were guardians of the Galaxy for over 1000 generations, that's the Galaxy not a single planet, which means they made very little progress in all that time, and we can assume a generation is between and 20,000 and 40,000 years. This fact becomes important for much of the rest of my debate. The Star Trek civilization has been space faring for longer yet has made very little progress when compared to the Federation and most of the other civilizations in Star Trek.

Firepower.
When it comes to personal firepower Star Trek wins there too, look at the damage a phaser does when compared to a blaster. What about a lightsaber you ask? A long distance weapon is always superior to a weapon you must fight up close but I guess the Klingon Bat'leth would be comparable, true you could probably cut through the Bat'leth with a lightsaber, but this would only be a concern if when Klingons are challenged to an honorable dual and they were dumb enough to let a Jedi use his lightsaber. Phasers have a setting that can ultimately vaporize while Blasters have no such option. A phaser can also fire a steady stream while a blaster shoots in bursts. True you're dead either way at least if your human, some aliens may need the extra power. Blasters are also bulky compared the the phaser, which can be a strategic disadvantage. Although there are a number of variants from pistol to riffle, even putting that into account the Blaster is in general bulkier. [2][3]


There is the Death Star. When it comes to technology in Star Wars what is the Empire good at? Creating weapons of Mass destruction. I will grant you that at the time I have outlined (the Original Series) the Federation didn't have something with those capabilities. It took the Empire 20 years to build the first Death Star then less than four to get the Second one operational. However creating something that can destroy a planet pales in comparison to one that can create a planet, case in point, the Genesis device. At the same time the Genesis device does destroy everything around it. (see video) Furthermore the Federation is meant to be peaceful yet is able to make weapons that rival or even surpass those in Star Wars. Everyone seems shocked in the Return of the Jedi when the Death Star takes out a ship as in the Star Wars Universe just shooting at a ship does very little damage compared to Star Trek.

Let's look at droids, humanoid droids like C3PO go back to at least the prequels. While we do see androids in the original series, a truly successful human droid really didn't come around in Star Trek until we see Data in the Next Generation, but again this is a matter of technological advancement, in the Star Wars Universe droid technology seems to be stagnant. C-3PO also serves the function of being a translator. This is not necessary in Star Trek as they have the Universal Translator which although incomplete in Enterprise still functions for most of the known races. [3] In terms of other Droids R2 units are essentially glorified Swiss army knives.

Speaking of Swiss army knives that brings me to my next point, in Star Trek they have Tricorders. They are a very useful medical tool with many different functions. Some are more specialized like the medical tricorder. Perhaps R2 has some of these functions but it's not entirely analogous and again I will bring up the portability issue.

They have holographic technology in the Star Wars Universe for broadcasting images before Star Trek, but Star trek then soon develops holograms independent of any person, and once again the Star Wars technology is stagnant.

Transporters. Star Wars doesn't even have anything remotely similar so Star Trek is way ahead in this one.

Obviously it can be argued they don't take place in the same time period as Enterprise and the Original series take place in the 22nd and 23rd century respectively while Star wars takes place a “long time ago” however the debate I on comparing the technologies seen on screen and Star Wars has stagnation with it's technology while Star Trek sees incredible progress.
Overall Star Trek technology is more advanced and progresses at a much faster rate than that of Star Wars.
I thank my opponent and look forward to next round.

1 http://en.memory-alpha.org...

2 http://starwars.wikia.com...
3 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
4 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
ConservativePolitico

Con

This debate should be good.

Rebuttals

Speed

My opponent has already tried to counter the claim I was going to make about the speed of Star Wars ships. It takes mere hours and days to traverse large swaths of space in Star Wars. In A New Hope the Millennium Falcon reaches Alderan from Tatooine in what seems like a few hours. Tatooine as we know is in the Outer Rim Territories. However, evidence suggests that the galaxy is not a microgalaxy as my opponent tries to argue. Some sources argue that the galaxy is standard in size, 120k lightyears across with 400 billion stars. [1] Also, it is a well known fact that the Republic/Empire do not have significant influence in the Outer Rim, if the galaxy was indeed as compact as my opponent wants us to believe it would seem that it would be easy for the Republic/Empire to dominate the galaxy when that is not the case. The Empire has a hard time finding the rebels and the Outer Rim remains rough and uncivilized which leads us to believe the galaxy is indeed of normal massive size.

Hyperdrive in Star Wars appears to be much much faster than any propulsion in Star Trek. It would have taken Voyager 75 years to reach the Alpha Quadrant from the Gamma Quadrant. In The Empire Strikes Back Admiral Piett says:

"If the Millennium Falcon went into light-speed, it'll be on the other side of the galaxy by now." [2]

Even if we assume that the Star Wars galaxy is "micro", say 10,000 light years across (10% of the Milky Way) the Millennium Falcon could still traverse half in a matter of an hour or two meaning it can travel at ~5,000 light years an hour. Much, much faster than anything in Star Trek and more indicative of the travel times seen in the movies.

Firepower

My opponents main argument here is that phasers shoot in a continued stream (which naturally would use more energy mind you) and are not as "bulky" as blasters. In Star Wars we see much more diversity of weapons than in Star Trek. In Star Trek we have the standard phaser and then photon torpedoes. In Star Wars we see blasters, turbolasers, the Death Star's planet destroying beam, sonic charges, sonic blasters, missiles and ion cannons. Each weapon serves a different role and is much more diverse than in Star Trek. Then there is the lightsaber which is not only one of the most badass weapons ever imagined but can deflect blaster (and assumingly phasers) beams as well as cut through solid steel and other hard materials. If we look at the lightsabers cutting ability (as when they melted the blast doors of the Trade Federation capital ship in The Phantom Menace) and the planet destroying ability of the Death Star simple phasers begin to look boring and ineffective.

Droids, Holograms and Transporters

When we look at the technology of droids, my opponent points out one special example of a droid in Star Trek in the form of Data. However, if we look at droid tech over all we see that there is much greater proliferation of droids in the Star Wars universe. Some of them have full personalities but they are everywhere and they are all mostly intelligent and independent. There are far, far more droids in Star Wars serving all sorts of purposes which shows that droid tech is much easier and more accessible in Star Wars than in Star Trek. There were entire armies of intelligent droids in Star Wars, worker droids, interpreter droids, computer oriented droids. In Star Trek we just see Data, one android.

Hologram technology in Star Trek seems to fill the void that is left by the clear absence of the proliferation of droids. Droids seem much more practical than holograms. They don't need hologram emitters, a constant external power source or a large computer bank to run them, they are portable and accessible at all times. Star Trek uses holograms because they don't have the droid power that Star Wars has. Star Wars rightly uses holograms for mainly communication because they have droids to perform the other functions that holograms seem to do in Star Trek.

In Star Wars there is no transporters device like in Star Trek no. But do they need it as much? Star Wars ships are much much faster (as I have demonstrated) and therefore direct transportation is not needed as much. Plus, transporters seem to have a lot of issues. They are easily disturbed and interfered by atmospheric disturbances and other anomalies making the transporter unusable in many situations. Star Wars does not have this problem. Rarely did we see anyone stuck, stranded or blended together due to shuttle craft.

Arguments

Construction

The Star Wars universe seems to be much more adept at construction than the Star Trek universe. Star Wars hosts much much larger ships than in Star Trek, the Super Star Destroyer and Star Destroyers, Death Star, Mon Calamari cruisers are all massive. The standard Star Destroyer was a mile long while the Super Star Destroyer was 19km long. [3] And the Republic/Empire churned out hundreds of these ships. The Star Wars universe also boasts construction feats such as Corucant, a planet completely covered in cityscape, on Naboo there are underwater dome cities protected by energy fields while Bespin saw a floating colony situated above a gas giant. All of these construction feats blow the Star Trek universe out of the water in terms of size, proliferation and advancement.

Energy and Propulsion

It is well known that the Star Trek universe is powered by anti-matter warp cores and it is just as well known that these warp cores are finicky and hard to manage. You don't hear anything about propulsion or energy in Star Wars. Why? Because obviously it has become so standard that it requires no maintenance or attention. The warp cores of Star Trek must be kept stable, insulated, unbreached, fueled etc. causing endless hassle for the crews of various ships throughout the series. Star Wars has no such problem. Save for damage we see no problems with the engines or power sources of any ship which to me speaks volumes about the tech involved.

Conclusion

My opponent put out good points but they seem to have been countered. Even in a microuniverse Star Wars ships are much faster than Star Trek ships, they are not plagued by the problems and propulsion issues of a pesky warp core and they can zip around the galaxy in hours or days. Star Wars boasts much more weapons of great diversity and purpose from the legendary lightsaber (which was quite effective in all situations) to the Death Star's planet destroying beam the firepower in Star Wars seems to be greater as well. There is a high proliferation of useful independent droids in Star Wars as well as holograms whereas Star Trek only has holograms save for a few special examples of extraordinary androids. Construction seems to be much larger and more proliferated as well.

Overall the tech in Star Wars seems to be of a similar or higher level than in Star Trek.



[1] http://starwars.wikia.com...
[2] http://www.ssonlineuniverse.net...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
BennyW

Pro

I thank my opponent for the response. I will start by refuting my opponent's points.

Speed
If the reason for the speed of the ships in Star Wars is due ton hyperspace then it is not really due to technology so much as the fact that their Galaxy possesses special features that enhance travel speed. It would be analogous to using a Wormhole in Star Trek. Also, they were developing Transwarp which essentially allows travel anywhere in the galaxy almost instantaneously, in Star Trek by the time of the Excelsior, and we can't know how successful it was because Scotty sabotaged it and that is the reason the idea was abandoned for so long. [1] My opponent claims warp fails more than the hyper-drive in Star Wars, but the Millennium Falcon hyper-drive failed, granted it was due to sabotage but it still proves my opponent's point false. In terms of the size of the Galaxy I just wonder how official the numbers are.

Firepower
My opponent claims Blaster have a larger variety than weapons on star Trek. But on Star Trek there are several types of phasers, pistol riffle, not to mention Klingon Blasters, and as for ship weapons, you have phasers and photon Torpedoes, later on they will even gain proton torpedoes. [2] There was a wide array of weapons ins Star Trek [3] Not to mention the fact that in Star Trek the weapons on ships tend to be more accurately largely because they can track on to their target as opposed to manually aiming in Star Wars. In Star Trek even the smallest ships have shields that can maintain several hits while in Star Wars X-Wings seem to be able to be shot down fairly easily.

Droids, Holograms and Transporters
My opponent correctly points out that the proliferation of droids is much greater is Star Wars. However in Star Trek they have other things that serve the functions that would otherwise be served by droids. Engineers do much of the work that R2D2 does and humans can deal with problems better as seen by how many times Scotty overcomes impossible situations. Also, I will again bring up the universal translator which makes a droid like C-3PO unnecessary.


Construction
My opponent brings up that the Ships in Star Wars are bigger, the Imperial ships are huge but not so much for the Rebel ships. For instance the Millennium Falcon is tiny at 34.37 meters long.[4] Compare that to the Enterprise for the Original series, it was Constitution Class which is 289 Meters. [5] I would remind my opponent that this was a comparably short period of time to develop the technology of these ships compared to those in Star Wars. Also, certain civilizations such as the Borg have much larger ships. Size however does not mean it's better. Size can be a hindrance in fact such as the scene where three Star Destroyers almost collide. How about the fact that it was a tiny X-Wing that took out the first Death Star?

Cloaking
I would like to add cloaking abilities. The Kilingons and Romulans have these and the Federation at some point knows the technology but has an agreement not to use it (with exceptions coming along such as the Defiant in DS9). You don't really see cloaked ships in Star Wars.

Genetic manipulation
Star Trek has the augments, or superhuman, the most prominent example being Khan. They were created long before the time-line of the shows (in the 1990s). [6] Star Wars has clones but it appears they can only be created by a specifics races of aliens. [7]The Federation had toyed around with cloning technology since the time of Enterprise and groups such as the Dominion had been cloning for centuries.[8]

Ignored points
My opponent ignored my point about the Genesis device and I will still maintain the power to create is far superior to the power to destroy. They also had Red matter much later which had the same effect as the Death Star, although much later they did eventually have the ability.
I will also continue to maintain my point that technology in Star Trek advances at a much faster rate than Star Wars which is the true measure of how advanced something is.

I await the next round




1 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
2 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
3 https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://starwars.wikia.com...
5 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
6 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
7 http://starwars.wikia.com...
8 http://en.memory-alpha.org...
ConservativePolitico

Con

ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BennyW

Pro

BennyW forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Con

ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by StarTrek 3 years ago
StarTrek
By 29th century in Star Trek, the federation possessed technology that allowed them to bend space and allowed them to travel literally between galaxies nearly instantaneously. Star Wars never came close to that.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Also, Star Trek is capable of time travel which is a really big deal. In fact, that alone makes Star Trek the winner.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Both Pro and Con made some good points. Con brought up some stuff I didn't think about before.
This has gotten me to think. Maybe I was wrong to say Star Trek is more advanced. For example, Data was not created by the Federation in Star Trek. In fact, the Star Trek Federation scientists could not duplicate Data's positronic brain technology. So Data is unique. Also, it is a fact that Star Wars has faster ships because their ships enter hyperdrive. I think hyperdrive is mentioned in the 1st Star Wars movie when Han Solo says, "Coming out of hyperdrive now". So maybe .1, .2, .3, .4 or .5 over light speed is what it takes to engage their hyperdrive engines so that they can travel in hyperdrive which is a kind of slipstream. Slipstream is mentioned in the Star Trek universe, but the Federation does not have Slip Stream technology. In fact, Voyager attempted slip stream travel and failed. Plus, I have seen Star Trek episodes where Klingon Ships armed with disrupters were able to destroy Federation ships. Those disrupters sure seemed to fire in the same way the Star Wars ships would fire. Also, how do we know what the deflector screen strength of a Star Wars ship is compared to the shield strength of a Star Trek ship? The fact is that we don't know.
But, the Pro is right about Phasers verses blasters at least in hand guns. Phasers are clearly more powerful. Also, Star Trek wins in the stealth department because transporters and cloaking devices are not in Star Wars. The federation in Star Trek has cloaking tech that can make their ships invisible, but do not use such technology because of a treaty between themselves and the Romulan empire. Also, one cannot disregard the transporter technology since it is a tool that can be used to get persons on and off of a planet instantly, which is a definite advantage in life or death situations. Its also a tool that can be used to board an enemy ship as well.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
There's an error in my first paragraph, it's Han Solo that says this not Obi Wan.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Star Trek technology came about within such a short amount of time, 3 centuries of space exploration. Whereas Star Wars technology was the result of 30,000 years of space exploration. Yet over all, Star Trek technology seems to exceed Star Wars technology. Not that Star Wars doesn't have technology that Star Trek does not, but Star Trek simply has more tech advancements than Star Wars.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Watch out Obi Wan is about.
Posted by ObiWan 3 years ago
ObiWan
While I don't think I can win, the need to defend Star Wars is tempting me to accept
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
Oh trust me I have seen hardcore Star Wars fans try to argue why Star Wars is better in this regard. Part of my argument is something I don't think anyone else has used.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I have a hard time imagining disagreement to this resolution. If it's good for the dramatic flow of each series, is another question.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
Once they come out with the next Star Wars film I may revisit this debate from the Next Generation perspective.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
BennyWConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No conduct points awarded because both sides dropped out. Until then it had been a good debate, and from what I can tell Pro was winning thanks in large part to red matter, the genesis device, and transporters. The mass proliferation of droids in Star Wars initially led me to count that as a point, but I think Con's discussion of holograms actually backfired because I came away with the impression that the droids are clunky compared to holographic technology.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BennyWConservativePoliticoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides seem to have dropped out... sad.