The Instigator
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
UltimateRussian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

star wars is more scientifically plausible than star trek

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 5 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,340 times Debate No: 45460
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

theta_pinch

Con

Pro goes first.
UltimateRussian

Pro

I am ready to debate! :)
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Con

1.Star wars has AN ENORMOUS moon sized space station along with a fleet of ships kilometers long.
2.Star trek's largest ship is 685 meters long and only six of those have ever been made.
3. six 685 meter long star ships along with numerous smaller ones is more plausible than a fleet of starships that are multiple kilometers long mainly because of the sheer amount of material needed to build those ships.

1. Star Wars has a hyperdrive which sends the ship into another dimension.
2. Star Trek has a warp drive that creates a spatial distortion that it rides on.
3. A warp drive is more plausible than a hyperdrive as evidenced by NASA experimenting on the method used in the warp drive(aside from the warp plasma and warp coils) while alternate dimensions are still speculative.

1. Star Wars has a superlaser that destroys planets and star destroyers that have an output of 200 gigatons.
2. Star Trek's most advanced ship has a phaser output of 16 megawatts.
3. 16 megawatts is more plausible than the several hundred yottawatts required to destroy a planet or 200 gigatons.

1. Star Wars has Star Destroyers that have a power core that outputs the same amount of energy as several main sequence stars.
2. Star Trek has warp cores with a power output of 12.75x10^6 terawatts.
3. A power output of 12.75x10^6 Terrawatts is more plausible than the power output of three stars.

1. Star Wars has the power source"hypermatter" that when anihilated produces more power than an equal amount of anti-matter violating E=Mc^2
2. Star Trek has the power source of anti-matter which doesn't violate E=Mc^2

SOURCES
http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com...
http://starwars.wikia.com...
http://starwars.wikia.com...
http://starwars.wikia.com...
http://starwars.wikia.com...
http://starwars.wikia.com...
http://www.ditl.org...
http://starwars.wikia.com...
http://en.memory-alpha.org...
UltimateRussian

Pro

Considering the vastness of space there is undoubtedly enough metal and materials to construct the Death Star and its Star destroyers. We have also never proven that there are not additional dimensions so Hyperdrives do not count a sun plausible, in the future technological advancements would allow this all to happen so Star Wars is no less plausible then Star Trek.
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Con

Considering the vastness of space there is undoubtedly enough metal and materials to construct the Death Star and its Star destroyers.

Building one imperial star destroyer would take more metal than at least 20 sky scrapers. Yes they probably could find that much metal and materials for star destroyers but the death star would require more metal than we've dug up and used in all of human history.

We have also never proven that there are not additional dimensions so Hyperdrives do not count a sun plausible.

I have no clue what the underlined phrase means.


in the future technological advancements would allow this all to happen so Star Wars is no less plausible then Star Trek.

According to this statement one day we will be able to violate E=Mc^2, we will be able to create entire dimensions, we will be able to get the power of several suns in a place the size of mars' moon, be able to create 200 gigaton weapons, and be able to destroy planets. There is no way we could violate physical laws, create dimensions, create 200 gigaton weapons, destroy planets, and get the power of several suns in a few kilometers of space; it is simply impossible to our knowledge.

CONCLUSION
Pro's only rebuttal is that one day future technology will let us do all the things in star wars despite several violating the laws of physics. Therefore pro's rebuttal is invalid.
UltimateRussian

Pro

Since space is near infinite the amount of metal used by humanity is tiny proving pros rebuttal useless and also the rest of his argument was not worth reading and a waste, the phrase means as unplausable. You have not proven me wrong yet I have proven you wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Con

"Since space is near infinite the amount of metal used by humanity is tiny proving pros rebuttal useles"

It's not useless because there's a limit to how far you can travel within a realistic period of time.

"and also the rest of his argument was not worth reading and a waste, the phrase means as unplausable."


I'm pretty sure you're saying this because you can't figure out a rebuttal for everything else.

"You have not proven me wrong yet I have proven you wrong.
"

You haven't quite proven me wrong since you didn't make any actual arguments. I on the other hand showed that star trek is way more plausible with star wars unplausible scale and blatant violations of physics.

CONCLUSION
I have given 5 ways star trek is more plausible than star wars while pro has given no arguments why star wars is more plausible. Therefore since the burden of proof was shared pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof while I have. Pro's only argument is that with future technology the things in star wars will be possible completely ignoring the fact that several things in Star Wars violate the laws of physics! Because of that pro's argument does not withstand scientific and realistic scrutiny.
UltimateRussian

Pro

Ok you just restated what you said earlier but not me. Star Wars says a long time ago in a galaxy far far away... his galaxy could have different physics than we do proving your argument invalid.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MarsUltor 2 years ago
MarsUltor
Star Wars takes place in the Andromeda which has more stars and planets then the milky way does meaning they do have the materials. There are probably billions of planets in the milky way and Andromeda has more.
Star Wars is a type II civilization it can harness all the power created by a sun so it's energy power isn't unrealistic. Also shown by the fact that they can destroy entire star systems with the sun crusher(Star wars land of creative names).
http://starwars.wikia.com...
Posted by NarutoUzamaki 3 years ago
NarutoUzamaki
Star trek is better because start wars sucks
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
UltimateRussian;

the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
It's not wikipedia; it's wookiepedia the unofficial star wars wiki and memory alpha the unofficial star trek wiki. Both site where they obtain the information.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
theta_pitch, you shouldn't use Wikipedia. It's not a very reliable source.
Posted by UltimateRussian 3 years ago
UltimateRussian
I am ok with that 3 rounds is plenty of time and I wanted to thank theta pinch for the debate opportunity :)
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
UltimateRussian... You were supposed to go first. You basically FF'd your first round.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
How about it now?
Posted by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
Of couse! A meaningful debate would be about moral/religious, or even scientific issues.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
This is a pointless debate?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
codemeister13
theta_pinchUltimateRussianTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, this is a tough one to vote on simply because it's kind of just a blowout. Pro used some of the most reliable sources possible for the task at hand of comparing two fictional storylines and the arguments to back those sources were relatively solid. Con just didn't really perform all that well. "Star Wars says a long time ago in a galaxy far far away... his galaxy could have different physics than we do proving your argument invalid." Well... yeah. That's great and all but you've invalidated your entire claim too by basically stating none of Star Wars is possible because it follows entirely different physics than our galaxy. Not only does that not make sense in that aspect but it's a different galaxy; not a different universe. If we're in the same universe, the same laws of physics would apply. Therefore, in the end, Pro has my vote.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
theta_pinchUltimateRussianTied
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: Not much of a contest at all by Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
theta_pinchUltimateRussianTied
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: I cannot give sources, as con did not actually connect his sources to his argument (kind of a requirement, no matter how good the content of a list of links might be). ARGUMENTS: "maybe" is not contesting much of anything. S&G: No Jar Jar speak distracting from arguments, so this remains tied (perhaps if it were longer something in it would annoy me).
Vote Placed by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
theta_pinchUltimateRussianTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Wasn't hard to choose when pro hardly tried.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
theta_pinchUltimateRussianTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't often like giving all 7 points. Nonetheless, I do feel it was a clean sweep for Con. I almost wonder whether Pro was trolling..."his galaxy could have different physics than we do"? Really, that's your argument in support? Con gave reasons to think that Star Trek was more plausible. At best, what little Pro wrote was in support of Star Wars being possible at all. While that's fine and dandy, it does nothing for the resolution. Arguments to Con. S&G should be obvious--Pro's sentence structure left a great deal to be desired. For Sources, Con actually provided some (and used the most respectable sites for canon references), whilst Pro gave nothing. As to conduct: frankly, it seems like Pro didn't even bother debating, here. He never addressed the motion directly, and hardly bothered any sort of rebuttal. I feel like his responses were a waste of Con's time, and so I give conduct to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.