Jedi Master Spock wrote:Alyeska as a pro-Trek debater could only fly at SDN among the SDN core. Nowhere else does he seem to qualify.
You are operating under a flawed definition of what qualifies a Trekkie.
Not Trekkie. A "pro-Trek debater." The two are entirely distinct.
You assume that person must believe Trek is more powerful then Wars.
In order to be called a "pro-Trek" debater in a Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, you do indeed need to be making assertions favorable to Star Trek relative to Star Wars, at least more so than the average partisan of the VS debate. It's simple; it's definitional
This is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.
Not at all.
The term Pro-Trek itself merely indicates someone is in favor of Trek. Does Pro-Trek mean that someone will support Trek 100% of the time in every situation? Would you rationally argue that to be Pro-Trek you have to believe a TOS era shuttle craft could take down the Death Star? When you get right down to it Pro-Trek is a preference of what you argue. It doesn't mean you will side with Trek in every situation.
And siding with Trek more often than the average such partisan would be the minimum to qualify, Alyeska.
The nature of the arguments and discussions I have been in since I first entered the VS debates clearly puts me in the camp of Pro-Trek.
Only - as I said earlier - relative to SDN. In relation to other communities, e.g., SB.com, here, and elsewhere, you do not appear to favor Trek more than the typical individual, but less. It is a matter of standards; among a continuous spectrum from those who think Star Wars could curbstomp Star Trek to those who think Star Trek could curbstomp Star Wars, you seem to fall rather closer to the former extreme than the latter.
I like to think that I am perfectly fair and consistent of my treatment of the two franchises, but I readily acknowledge that by the standards of, say, SDN, I would be called clearly and dramatically pro-Trek.
Do you understand now why it is that from all that I have heard, it is only in the community associated with SDN that you are considered to be on the "side" of Star Trek by those dividing debaters into partisan sides?
I favor it first and foremost above all other universes. I am on a different point of the scale then some people, that is all. To accuse me of not being Pro-Trek is ignorant and hateful. One could easily argue that I am biased, but I can just as rightly point out that everyone is biased and the statement itself is relatively meaningless.
Some people don't like the arguments I have made. But instead of discussing or attacking the arguments, they see fit to attack my character. That doesn't bode well for their character.
And for the record, I have resigned my position at SD.net and left the forums entirely. My reasons are personal.
"Everyone" may have
biases; however, there is a difference in both display and kind of bias present. The fact that on SB.com you have been perceived as a partisan of Stardestroyer.net, standing clearly against Star Trek and in favor of Star Wars, is an indication that you have shown them an evident bias in that regard.
If it is a perception you do not want, then it is up to you to show them otherwise. I don't think simply saying that you're a Trekkie and love Star Trek above all other franchises is going to convince many people that you should be called a pro-Trek debater.