The Instigator
frankfurter50
Pro (for)
The Contender
retroz
Con (against)

the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
frankfurter50 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 99818
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

frankfurter50

Pro

khan is the most idiotic star trek villain ever conceived by gene roddenberry.

in the 20th century, people made predictions about the future. usually around the year two thousand. these things were way off and ridiculous.

you can watch some of them on youtube, for some good laughs.

i argue that the further forward in time you set your sci fi story, the better it will be, because by that time the world will have changed so much that they won't even know your sci fi story exists and won't make fun of it.

these futuristic shorts did horribly at this. they said that by the year 2000, we would have flying cars and land on mars. it was idiotic.

but then, a beacon of hope came along. it was star trek, and it was set so far into the future that we can't ridicule it today.

but one episode, just one episode, mind you, turned the series from a brilliant masterpiece into a campy disaster and slaughtered the series with one fell swoop.

that episode was the one with khan.

in it, khan's origin is revealed. he's a genetically modified indian guy from the nineties who tried to conquer the world.

sounds like those shorts, doesn't it? i've found that most people who love the wrath of khan have never seen that episode, and don't know what a trashheap he is.

i await your next argument.
retroz

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his very brief plot summary of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

However Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is definitely not the worst Star Trek movie.

P1: Awards are a good way to determine a movie's quality
P2: Ratings are a good way to determine a movie's quality
P3: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has higher ratings than most Star Trek movies and has been nominated for several awards
C1: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is not the "stupidest" Star Trek movie

P1: Awards are a good way to determine a movie's quality
This is common sense, a good movie is more likely to be given awards and nominations than a bad one, thus you can judge a movie's relative quality due to the amount of awards it has received.

P2: Ratings are a good way to determine a movie's quality
Sometimes awards aren't representative of a population's opinion on a movie. So, the average person can go online and rate a movie, thus offering their opinion on the movie. This is much more representative of awards and shows how the general population feels a bout a movie's quality

P3: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has received awards and a high rating

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was nominated for 11 awards in 1983 and won 2 of them, then it was recognized again in 2003 being nominated as a "Best DVD Classic Film Release".

Star Trek II also has a rating of 7.7 on IMDB, highest of all Shatner-Era Star Trek films.

http://www.imdb.com...;
http://www.imdb.com...

C1: Thus Star Trek II is not the "stupidest" of all Star Trek films

On top of this, let's remember that my opponent has not offered any proof our sources showing Star Trek II is the "stupidest"

But to add on, I'd like to propose a movie which I believe is worse than Star Trek II, Star Trek V: the Final Frontier

Not only does it have the worst rating of any Shatner-era Star Trek film on IMDB but its plotline is poor (as it has the same premise as episode 3 "Where No Man Has Gone Before")

http://www.imdb.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
frankfurter50

Pro

sir, I agree that the final frontier is very stupid. however, your Conception of movie ratings as a measure of a film's quality is a bit off.

they may measure a films popularity, but historical accuracy is not included in that measure. and remember, the majority of that popularity is from fans who have never seen space seed, the original Khan episode. they do not know that he is a "genetically modified superbeing" who tried to take over the world in the nineties. they just think he's a badass who puts bugs into people's ears. might i mention, that scene is grotesque and lowers the quality of the film quite a bit.

i argue that the original motion picture is far superior to the wrath of Khan. the cool nebula, the mind controlled bald lady, and the clicky Klingon song all make for a great story.

like i said, the historically inaccurate origin of Khan turn a brilliant. masterpiece into a campy b movie like the blob.

i await your next argument.
retroz

Con


"your Conception of movie ratings as a measure of a film's quality is a bit off. They may measure a film's popularity but historical accuracy is not included in that measure"

While I agree that historical accuracy isn't in every single movie review/rating, some people do take that into account when rating sci-fi movies. But where I disagree with you most is that historical accuracy does not necessarily mean its a good/bad movie...

P1: Nearly no movies are accurate
P2: A good movie may not accurate
C1: Accuracy does not define how good a movie is
W1: Thus my opponent's entire argument is invalid

P1: Nearly no movies are accurate
Non-Documentary films are nearly never historically accurate. In fact, many movies that appear historically accurate, typically aren't. A study done on the movie "The Intimidation Game" found that it was only around 41% accurate, however, most people who saw it, believed it to be 100% true. We must remember movies are meant to be fiction unless they are categorized as Documentaries, and fiction movies shouldn't be judged on accuracy, rather entertainment.


P2: A good movie may be inaccurate

In David Lean’s, “Lawrence of Arabia,” considered by many film critics to be a "classic" or "epic". Lawrence’s men cheer him when he returns from the desert, having single-handedly ventured back into that treacherous sea of boiling sand to rescue the unfortunate Gassim.

However, this is not true, according to Scott Anderson’s non-fiction account, “Lawrence in Arabia,” Lawrence, was greeted with rage and derision by his troops, for having foolishly risked his life as their leader in pursuit of a worthless ruffian.

To add on to this, "2001: a Space Odyssey", considered one of the greatest Sci-Fi books/movies of all time, was completely wrong about the technological advancement of today. But it is still one of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time.

C1: Accuracy does not define how good a movie is
Because many good movies (like The Wrath of Khan) are historically inaccurate, but still are good movies, we can deduct that historical accuracy does not define how good a movie is, thus, my opponent's argument of accuracy is completely flawed.



"sir, I agree that the final frontier is very stupid"
My opponent doesn't offer why Final Frontier is less stupid than The Wrath of Khan, thus, concedes the point that there is a movie greater than or equal to the stupidity that he claims The Wrath of Khan has.

Thus you have to vote con
Debate Round No. 2
frankfurter50

Pro

you think you've already won, don't you?

i forgot to say this after your round one argument, but "where no man has gone before" is NOT episode three, it is episode TWO. thus, you probably have no knowledge whatsoever of the original series and probably never watched the wrath of khan either. a true fan would know the order of the episodes to a t.

in my opinion, a story which is historically inaccurate spoils the entire plot of a movie, unless the movie is specifically intended to be an alternate history film. the wrath of khan is not meant to take place in an alternate timeline, it takes place far in the future in OUR timeline.

you see, space seed was an honest mistake, but by the time the wrath of khan was made, it was much later, and they should have realized that a race of genetically altered superbeings was NOT going to take over the earth. khan should have been thrown in the dustpile and swept away into the trash. it's like a film saying that in five years we will fly to the edge of the universe. technology simply does not advance that quickly.

khan is not an intriguing villain either. his only unique trait is super strength. beyond that, he's just a hispanic guy. that's it.

if the second star trek film had harry mudd in it, i would be obsessed with it. i argue that harry mudd is the greatest star trek villain. he's funny, boisterous, and he comes up with everything from old women who look beautiful to love crystals to being king of a bunch of androids. evidently, during the time of the original series, mudd was more popular, since he was in two episodes and khan was only in one.

khan is the stupidest star trek villain and the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie. i hold my position.

i await your next argument. and please, don't take too long. i hate guys who take too long to post their argument.
retroz

Con

"you think you've already won, don't you?"

I don't think I have already won, I know that I have won


"i forgot to say this after your round one argument, but "where no man has gone before" is NOT episode three, it is episode TWO. thus, you probably have no knowledge whatsoever of the original series and probably never watched the wrath of khan either. a true fan would know the order of the episodes to a t."

Two issues here... First, this is an ad-hominem attack and should be considered irrelevant, this major lapse in conduct should be counted against my opponent

Second, this is not true...
Where No Man Has Gone Before was originally aired on September 22nd, 1966.

Charlie X was the second episode ever aired on September 15th, 1966

The Naked Time was the fourth episode ever aired on September 29th, 1966

Because it is in between the second and fourth episodes, it must be the third episode


"In my opinion, a story which is historically inaccurate spoils the entire plot of a movie, unless the movie is specifically intended to be an alternate history film. the wrath of khan is not meant to take place in an alternate timeline, it takes place far in the future in OUR timeline."

Notice how my opponent offers NO proof, sources, or reputable people who agree with them, to be blatant, who cares what your opinion is? I've already proven that the Wrath of Khan is not the stupidest Star Trek Movie, and you agreed with it too (by conceding that Star Trek V is stupid, without offering proof that it is not as "stupid" as Star Trek the Wrath of Khan).

Also, if my opponent were to hold "his opinion" then he would have to hold that nearly every movie ever created is bad, with only documentaries, Star Trek, Star Wars, and a few other movies being good, something my opponent would probably not agree with.

"khan is not an intriguing villain either. his only unique trait is super strength. beyond that, he's just a hispanic guy. that's it."

Once again, No proof, sources, evidence on top of that, is that my opponent just contradicted himself, showing that it's quite possible my opponent doesn't know who Khan is.

"In it, khan's origin is revealed. he's a genetically modified indian guy from the nineties who tried to conquer the world."

So, what we see is that my opponent has no valid points (lack of any evidence whatsoever), has contradicted himself, AND has conceded that Star Trek V is stupid (without offering any evidence that it is less stupid than the Wrath of Khan) thus we can assume he agrees with me that Star Trek V is stupider than Star Trek II

As it stands, my arguments are relatively unrefuted, his arguments (or lack thereof) are completely refuted, he has conceded a conduct point (by making an ad-hominem), and I am the only one to offer any sources, thus at the moment, there is no way my opponent can win.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 11 months ago
frankfurter50
thanks for starting this comments thread. i always love these cute little side debates.

oh, ha ha. i see. i was talking about the order of the PILOT episodes. you were talking about the order of the regular episodes. it's fine, i won't bring that up anymore.

just remember, where no man has gone before did come after the cage.

anyhoo, i really would suggest you post your argument quick, because if you don't do it in time, the darn thing will be shown on your dashboard forever. don't you find that irritating?

i look forward to you posting your argument.
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
Oh, and because oof what you said in your last argument, I am going to wait as long as possible before I post my argument
Posted by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
Nice Ad-Hom in your argument... But you are completely wrong about the order of episodes.

Where No Man Has Gone Before was originally aired on September 22nd, 1966.

Charlie X was the second episode ever aired on September 15th, 1966

The Naked Time was the fourth episode ever aired on September 29th, 1966

Because it is in between the second and fourth episodes, it must be the third episode
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.