Fantasy is Better than Science Fiction

Science fiction must be placed in a futuristic setting, but it in no way must take place in our own universe [see: The One [a movie]]. Yes, scientific laws must be in place in a sci-fi, but the new technologies often allow us to break these laws. For example, any space scifi. Faster than light speed travel is almost always present in films or books of this genre, even though science forbids such a thing. That is the beauty of science fiction - the "futuristic-ness" allows the author to break the rules of science, but in a meaningful way that does not leave the reader thinking how nonsensical it is. Not only this, but scientific laws are in place in any story. In fantasy however, magic is used to bypass these laws, rather than made-up technology. There is very little difference between magic and made-up future technologies - the only difference is that magic makes people feel more separated from the story. The made up technologies seem possible, so they tend to not scream "THIS ISN'T REAL" to the reader/viewer. Of course, only certain viewers are bothered by this, but it is something to consider nonetheless. My opponent claims that science fiction is MORE restrictive because it must be futuristic. However, I could just as easily call fantasy MORE restrictive because it must have magic. The real fact here is that they are both restrictions, and a good storymaker will have no problem in either of them. Granted, they are useful for completely different things. However, it cannot be said that stories about magic and adventure are better than stories in a futuristic setting. This, however, is exactly what my opponent is claiming. My opponent also makes the point that fantasy stories "allow us to think in ways we never thought possible." But then, don't science fiction stories do the same thing? In the movie "The One," which I mentioned earlier, the main characters are clones from separate universes, one of them being followed by inter-universal police. I would not normally think that possible, but "The One" manages to make that seem possible, at least while I'm watching it. Also, while we're talking about The One, I've stumbled on another point. In the movie, some of the parallel universes are less technologically developed than others. This mechanism allows for not only a futuristic setting, but also settings of any type. It isn't limited to parallel universes, though. Space travel is a very common theme in Sci-fi. With space travel, any planet can be made up, with people of any sort, with any level of technological capability. Moreover, magic-like powers aren't out of the reach of non-fantasy Sci-fis. I recently played a game called "Mass Effect" [there is a book, as well]. In it, there are biotic implants, a product of the futuristic technology of the time. People with these implants have "biotic powers" which allow them to do various things. They can throw objects they aren't touching, lift enemies in the air, put an enemy into 'stasis', make a damage-absorbing shield around themselves, create a sigularity that draws surrounding objects inward, and other powers. The first difference is that sci-fi does not REQUIRE magic-like abilities, fantasy does. The second is that whereas magic works "because it just does", these sci-fi versions of it have an actual rationalization behind them. Different people will obviously have differing tastes on these differences. Some might like the unknown-ness of magic, some might like the rationalization involved in sci-fi. However, it cannot be said that Fantasy is BETTER than sci-fi. It might be just as good. Even then, I'm a little skeptical, because Sci-fi makes a much better attempt at immersing the reader/viewer, since it does not inherently involve things that are inherently unexplained and absurd. I hold that they are AT LEAST equal, with Sci-Fi holding a possible edge in that regard.