Star Wars is better than Star Trek

Rebutalls Merchandise Con seems to think because Star Trek didn't focus on video games, my argument is void. Using Con's definition of sucessful, I can say Star Wars had aim's and goals in making their their franchise better, and video games were simply a part of it. Whatever the reason for Star Trek not making video games, Star Wars still made more profit out of it. Characters "But I'd also like to point out that Anakin Skywalker was relatable too, because in Episode 1: the Phantom Menace, he was seen as a 9-year old kid. So Darth Vader is not a good example of an alien culture" The point of my rebutall was to address that being able to relate to isn't an accurate way of measuring something is better. Con is now saying Darth Vader isn't a good example of alien culture, even though I never said he was an alien. "My opponent gives a list of alien in Star Wars that could be understood, but this isn't even close to equalling the amount of depth in aliens from Star Trek." Again, this was a rebutall for you saying, "Jar Jar was the only understandable alien you could think of". You haven't provided any information of the "depth" aliens , and you only gave a link to a book that teaches you a language from Star Trek. There are languages in Star-Wars that fanbases have spoken http://www.completewermosguide.com... Here is the link for proof, there is a language adopted by fans. It teaches how to speak Huttese. StoryI'm not sure what argument Con is trying to present here. Me talking about the fanbase was supposed to tell Con how deep and rich the Star Wars universe is. Con is now saying that fanbase things aren't canon in Star Trek. I don't see what this has to do with my argument.Sustainibillity I apologize for not presenting sources, but In my defense, I thought it was pretty evident when I said Star-Wars sold many video games, and toys. Here are the sources http://oneofus.net...http://www.cgjungpage.org... "But the continuality of Star Trek isn't based on speculation anymore, due the success of the new Star Trek films, which are CANON"Star-Wars doesn't need to keep making movies in order to make profit anymore. It sells alot of merchandise, broadcasts many T.V series, develops video games, etc... Also being canon, as nothing to do with the sustainibility of a franchise, fanbases are the ones who make something popular. So Star-Wars doesn't need to be making movies to make its franchise last, as it already is making profit from other things. Score "After tallying the awards won, I think we can assume that this category is tied, because both sides won the same amount of awards."I would like to remind Con of 2 things# of Star Trek Movies= 12# of Star Wars Movies=6So, to begin with, John Williams is already at a disadvantage. Secondly, "After tallying the awards won, I think we can assume that this category is tied, because both sides won the same amount of awards."I said earlier, "There are a ton more awards on the link I provided." So Con completely ignored the the source I provided, because it would go against his argument. Including the link I provided, John Williams won a total of 13 awards, compared to 9 won by all of the directors in Star Trek. So, my resolution is affirmed. Cultural Impact There isn't really anything for me to refute for the quotes, but in Con's sources, none of the quotes were ranked, so we have no way of telling how popular it really was, besides the fact it made the top 100. "I found these entries which I think prove the critical acclaim, and impact it left on the American entertainment industry."I would like to remind Con about his original claim. "I'd like to point out that Star Trek came out 11 years before Star Wars did. And it's special effects brought much acclaim". None of your sources proved that its special effects brought critical acclaim. It simply said the show brought critical acclaim, and nothing else. So Con has proven nothing to back up his special effects argument. "in my opinion, that cell phones, and ion drives have much more practical uses than the technololgies my opponent sourced, not to mention there were many more technologies inspired by Star Trek, more than the ones my opponent showed from Star Wars."In Con arguments earlier, he mentioned about cell phones and ion drives. However, his link directed me to a "Communicator Badge", which are not the same thing as a cell phone. Also, the idea of an ion drive came long before the the Star Trek t.v series were released. http://www.nasa.gov... "Here is the source that my opponent requested on the racial barriers broken by having a black woman play a lieutenant in the 1960's" Also, I'm not sure what Con is trying to say here. He simply is saying Star Trek included black people in its shows, but that wasn't the first time this was done before. http://www.npr.org...The first black actor appeared in 1937, so Star Trek isn't the first series to use black actors. Also, Lando Calrissian was portrayed by a black actor in Star-Wars.http://www.imdb.com... It is hard to tell who was the first homosexual actor, because many at the time were afraid to tell about their sexuality. Nevertheless, the first gay actor was Billy Haines. http://www.hollywood.com...; Here is one actor Yul Brynnerhttp://www.imdb.com...He started acting before Star Trek was released, and it was after the Cold War started.So overall, none of Con's examples were significant, because all of those racial barriers had already been broken. So Con fails in estabilshing that breaking racial barriers helped Star Trek make an cultural impact, because they already have been done before.Since this is the last round, I ask Con not to give arguments, or it will be a forfeiture for conduct.I thank Con for this debate.