Science Fiction Cannot Be Literature

I feel that there has been some sort of misunderstanding. The topic of the debate is "Science Fiction Cannot Be Literature". As the Con, it is my job to disagree with this statement, arguing that science fiction CAN be literature. My opponent's job, as Pro, is to AGREE with that stamens, and argue that science fiction CANNOT be literature. The second misunderstanding that I feel has arisen in the definition of literature. What my opponent has done is literally to argue, quite succinctly, that science fiction can come in book form. I will not argue with that. I have read enough science fiction novels to know that it is very possible to write down a science fiction story, tie all the pages together, and give it to someone to read. What we are here to debate is the literary value of science fiction as a genre. Literary value, as I have stated when I explained the topic, relates to the text's ability to explore ideas of widespread and lasting importance through textual structure and the themes. As anyone who has ever completed a high school level English course should know, the literary value and the enjoyment of the readers are not necessarily proportional. Science fiction is often given a bad name when compared to realism. The logic goes that as realism is meant to be an accurate reflection of the world, it will clearly have important things to say about the world. Realism provides a direct window into another part of life, and offers a understanding of something you don't have the chance to experience yourself. Sure, science fiction gives you an understanding of something you don't have a chance to live for yourself, but in what way can spaceships explore ideas of importance? I think at this point it is important to draw a few sub-genres in science fiction. The two I will be referring to here are what I call "Deeper Science Fiction" and "Cowboys and Indians in Space". Please understand that these are both generalised terms used to represent a wide range of texts in less than ten lines. Deeper Science Fiction, sometimes called "speculative fiction" by those who don't want to associate anything thought-provoking with the infamous "science fiction" label, refers to books (or other texts) which use a hypothetical world built within the realms of scientific possibly to either create a 'what if' scenario, or as analogy for an already present issue. "Cowboys and Indians in Space" does basically what it says on the tin. Possibly the most famous example of this genre is "Star Wars", which, despite all it's flashing lights, was really just a lot of good fun. A fine movie, certainly, but not literature. As such, I shall leave "Cowboys and Indians in Space" here. Deeper Science Fiction that uses its often futuristic setting as an analogy for another issue is an open and shut case. Analogy is widely accepted as a literary technique (I don't know what else you could call it) that means using one thing to express another. Such a text could, as such, discuss any issue that could be discussed in a realism text; in fact, science fiction can go further - using hyperbole to draw the reader's (or viewer's) attention to the more important details and to show relationships in a more clear fashion. This moves me on to the 'what if' style of Deeper Science Fiction. These books do not represent the world we know through tinted glass, but actually provide a new one. This creates a totally new world, and, usually, places humanity slap bang in the middle of it. By exploring human reactions in situations that we have never experienced before, we are ultimately exploring human nature itself. Human nature is arguably the most literary theme of all: we praise Shakespeare for exploring human nature through fantasy, why should it be different for science fiction?