Instigator / Pro
0
1558
rating
25
debates
64.0%
won
Topic

Disney Ruined Star Wars

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
0
Sources points
0
0
Spelling and grammar points
0
0
Conduct points
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Movies
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
0
1524
rating
8
debates
56.25%
won
Description
~ 266 / 5,000

I am Pro.
You may not use information from Star Wars The Clone Wars series, Star Wars Rebels, or any TV specials. Just the main OT, PT, DT, Rogue One, and Solo.
OT- Original Trilogy (IV-VI)
PT- Prequel Trilogy (I-III)
ST/DT- Sequel Trilogy or Disney Trilogy (VII-IX)

Round 1
Pro
Con mentions the Prequel Trilogy in the comments. I have plenty of issue with the execution and dialogue of the Prequels, but they're thematically airtight for the most part. While I loath Jar Jar with a passion, I loved the addition of Maul, Dooku, Windu, and Qui-Gon to the Universe. The main conflicts were sound, but the side plots like Anakin's love story are what people really hate. 

Whether or not the prequels had already "ruined" Star Wars, the Disney-created additions to the saga are continually ripping apart the set foundation.

1. Space Travel

I'm sure you remember the chase scene in The Last Jedi, with the rebel "fleet" fleeing before the superior First Order, running low on fuel, desperate to get away, unable to escape through hyperspace.
The problem with this is that it violates such a basic principle that it can't be explained away by advanced science.

They shouldn't be running low on fuel.

The law of inertia states that an object in motion at a certain velocity will continue to move at that velocity until acted upon by an outside force, whether gravity, or atmospheric drag, hitting a brick wall, etc. The rebel fleet, traveling through the vacuum of space, should be able to maintain its speed without the additional expenditure of fuel for propulsion. While some fuel would likely be needed to keep up systems within the ship, such as light and air and controls, they were supposedly dangerously creating a massive drain on fuel. Ships shown to run out of fuel fell behind the fleet and were caught by the First Order. This is simply ridiculous.

2. Hyperspace

In Solo: A Star Wars Story, there is the dramatic scene as Solo and the rest on the Falcon are struggling to escape a summa-verminoth (the giant space monster) and the pull of a gravity well in the Maw Cluster. Though they defeated the monster with the clever use of that piece on un-iconic trash in the "mandibular notch," they were trapped by the gravity well. In a desperate attempt to escape, they use a drop of unrefined coaxium to provide enough thrust to escape the Maw, as well as make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

This should not have worked.

Hyperspace, as far as the canon had shown before this, is an alternate dimension that allows interstellar travel in a similar fashion to the Nether in Minecraft. The corresponding space between two points in normal space is not as far apart in hyperspace. A hyperdrive is necessary to go into hyperspace, along with hyperfuel, also known as coaxium. The fact that a separate mechanism is required for this travel proves that it isn't simply a way of going really fast. And yet, that's exactly what it's shown to do in Solo. If Hyperspace was merely a form of extreme acceleration, than the ship would require thrusters in the front of the ship in order to decelerate from Hyperspace. (I'll ignore the inertial problems that such generation would entail since ships already utilize artificial gravity)
But Solo broke the concept of Hyperspace, and just like The Last Jedi, this plot hole makes the entire story impossible.

_______

These mistakes render the plot impossible, so yes, I would say that Star Wars is effectively ruined by Disney. More enjoyable than the prequels, but sunk so low in the terms of impossibility as to be unsalvageable.
Con
Thank you for your opening argument - but it seems like all you have done is pick out two scientific inaccuracies in the stories of two recent Star Wars movies. I’m not going to defend these inaccuracies, but rather, question why they’re important at all. It’s interesting that you have decided to judge Star Wars by how well it adheres to real-world science, when it is essentially a story about magic space wizards. On these grounds, why not criticize the original Star Wars movies? After all, it’s impossible to lift a spaceship with a wave of your hand, or create lightning from your fingertips. That’s a much more glaring scientific error than any quibbling about the laws of inertia in a vacuum.

I don’t see why trivialities like this should form the cornerstone of your argument. You even started off by defending the characters and plot of the prequels, so I’m a little surprised you didn’t even mention anything from the sequels except for those bits of science trivia. As far as I’m concerned, those don’t matter. Looking for scientific inaccuracies in a science fantasy film franchise is just silly. And you could comb through just about any movie and find that it’s riddled with plot holes, including the OT and PT. Even Citizen Kane and Casablanca, considered among the greatest movies of all time, have major plot holes. So major, in fact, that they undermine the entire story. But those stories are just so good that the critics don’t care about the plot holes. They don’t let that get in the way of enjoying a great film. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t pay any attention to plot inconsistencies in stories. I’m just saying that, if you find a plot hole, that doesn’t automatically mean you’re right and it’s a terrible movie. The more important discussion to have, in my opinion, is whether or not the film’s story is good enough to make up for it.

With that out of the way, in terms of quality, I don’t see what’s wrong with the ST. Rey is a decent main character, and I’m interested to know how her journey will turn out. I enjoy most of the side characters. It has great effects, good writing, and a compelling story. Everything involving the trio of Rey, Luke, and Kylo Ren in The Last Jedi is especially fascinating. Rey and Kylo clearly make a connection, and perhaps could have been friends in different circumstances, but of course they are torn apart. A lot of people had a problem with Snoke’s death, but I was fine with it. It was nice to get Palpatine 2.0 out of the way for the more interesting and conflicted villain: Kylo. I also thought it was neat to see that Luke turned out to be a very flawed human being. Heroes can fall from grace, as they do in real life. Much of TLJ seemed to be a commentary on letting go of the past and making way for change - which could also apply to the attitude of Star Wars fans. They put the original Star Wars films on a pedestal, and refuse to accept any change or reinterpretation of them.

Of course, this doesn’t mean I think the sequels are perfect. I thought The Force Awakens was a little too derivative of A New Hope. I didn’t think Rogue One had particularly interesting characters. I found The Last Jedi’s sideplot with Finn and Rose to be kinda forgettable. And I honestly just didn’t like Solo at all. I will freely acknowledge these problems - but did they “ruin” the entire Star Wars franchise? Not at all. I still enjoyed three out of the four movies so far. And I just found Solo a little bland. It’s still a masterpiece compared to the horrible mockery that is The Phantom Menace. You seem to accept that they are bad, but give a few charitable comments, and I must respond to those.

I loved the addition of Maul, Dooku, Windu, and Qui-Gon to the Universe.
If you watch the movies again, you will notice that these characters are all dull, stilted, and very badly acted. They do look cool, which is why I liked these characters as a kid, but going back to the prequels as an adult, you notice that these characters don’t have the least bit of a personality, thanks to George Lucas’ quality of dialogue-writing. The only remotely interesting character out of them is Darth Maul, and that’s mostly because he doesn’t say anything.

they're thematically airtight for the most part... The main conflicts were sound, but the side plots like Anakin's love story are what people really hate.
I gotta disagree. What are the main conflicts of the prequels? I’d say three main things: to show how the Clone Wars went, to portray what led to the downfall of the Republic and the Jedi, and to follow Anakin Skywalker’s descent into the dark side. All that’s shown of the Clone Wars is literally just squeezed into a few minutes at the end of Episode II, so that’s a failure. And the other two things are all concentrated into Episode III. The first two episodes, in the grand scheme of things, are just filler. And even when the main story is touched upon, it’s done sloppily. Anakin’s transition to evil is extremely quick. He goes from wanting to be a Jedi Master to swearing allegiance to Palpatine in a matter of minutes. I like the idea of portraying the Republic slowly decaying into a dictatorship as Palpatine grabs more and more power, but again, it’s just so rushed, and isn’t even hinted at until Episode III. It’s not just the side plots that people hate. For me, the characters, the effects, the story, the acting, and the writing all fall flat. These things aren’t even particularly good in the generally well-liked Revenge of the Sith, but it’s certainly the best of the prequels because it touches on some interesting themes. Themes that should have been explored for the entire trilogy.

So the sequels aren’t perfect, and in the same way, the prequels aren’t without their merits either. The original Star Wars trilogy is classic - all three are very good in their own right. But when The Phantom Menace came along, the franchise was permanently stained. If we take your definition of “ruin”, which is “cause great and usually irreparable damage or harm to; have a disastrous effect on”, then the prequels certainly did so to Star Wars in my opinion. In order to prove that the sequels have done the same, you’d have to demonstrate that they sink even lower than episodes I-III. Which you really aren’t, by admitting they’re “more enjoyable than the prequels”.

I love discussing art, and hope this doesn’t turn into a debate about the logistics of hyperspace fuel, because that would be quite boring. I certainly didn’t notice these things while watching, and I’m certain most of the audience didn’t. I simply don’t care about such questions in a story that’s clearly meant to be fantasy. If you’re going to criticize the sequels solely because they get space travel wrong, you’re going to have to defend the scientific accuracy of the space travel of the OT and PT, which is quite impossible. If you can argue that a certain plot hole is so glaringly terrible that it practically ruins the story, I’d listen to that. But I don’t see why minor scientific inaccuracies “ruin” a story clearly not meant to be bound by science. In terms of the things that matter, like plot, characters, writing, and humanity? The sequels haven’t ruined Star Wars. They have made it a lot better.

Now, the upcoming Star Wars trilogy that’s going to be directed by the two guys who ruined Game of Thrones? That’s gonna be a trainwreck.
Round 2
Pro

Con made the kritik that Star Wars was already ruined by the prequels, which is obviously false. Con very clearly enjoys Star Wars in respects to entertainment value, including the newer Disney additions, thus indicating that Star Wars is not ruined by the older prequels.. So the prequels did not ruin the saga by Con's standard (entertainment value) or mine (consistency).

Con also made a kritik that the other movies have much greater scientific problems than the others, namely the Force. I actually don't have a problem with the force because science acknowledges the possibility of the unknown. The existence of gravity waves was not proven until 2015 [1]. There is no evidence of a "magic" that permeates the galaxy and allows creatures to shoot lightning or lift objects telekinetically, but there is the open question that allows for such a thing to happen. However, when proven laws or principles are violated, it becomes a problem. The Force is improbable, but the problems I posed are impossible.

As Con pointed out, Rey and Ren's story is a good one, thematically, but movies aren't made by the romance. Ask an English teacher and they will tell you that the most important part of any story is the conflict. Conflict, the antagonists and their plots. And on those grounds, the sequels suck.

Snoke

Snoke was the worst villain in Star Wars imo. He literally did four things. 1. Use the Force to strengthen the connection between Rey and Ren, 2. head the First Order and be the "master" Sith, 3. Sit in his throne, and 4. Die.
There was this huge mystery set up in TFA for this mystery Sith guy, and then they kill him off.

Captain Phasma

Phasma is literally a throwaway. Finally, we get an intriguing character, this female stormtrooper with a Finn connection. But they just kill her off in TFA, then inexplicably bring her back for a tiny fight scene, only to kill her again. A lot of people felt cheated by this little stint.

___

Solo brought back Maul, which was the smartest thing Disney did with that movie (I also loved L3, but they killed her off!) 

Rogue One had a Bad-A moment for Vader that every other movie lacked, and I'm starting to like the "Star Wars Stories." I can't say the same for Disney's trilogy.


Con said that the prequels were rushed, but the sequels are drawn out, grasping at straws for a proper runtime. The First Order chases the Resistance in a straight ******* line for literally hours while Finn and Rose try to save them.

Speaking of Finn and Rose, how obvious is it that that romance was tacked on so they could do a cliched "the protagonist has feelings for the main antagonist" shtick?

Luke and Han, the old nostalgia magnets, die. If you watch the trailers, you can tell they purposely put in a lot of those two to get the most theater viewers, but then they end up being undertones. I'm all for new characters, but the trailers were like cash-grabbing lies.
They STILL haven't killed Leia yet, despite the actress' death, so we're in for more 'uncanny valley' CGI.

The sequels haven’t ruined Star Wars. They have made it a lot better.

XD You're funny.








Con
Con made the kritik that Star Wars was already ruined by the prequels, which is obviously false...the prequels did not ruin the saga by Con's standard (entertainment value) or mine (consistency).
By saying this, you are undermining the argument you’ve set out to make. So you start off this round by claiming that, because I still enjoy the originals, it’s impossible for Star Wars to have been “ruined” for me. But at the same time, you claim that Disney has “ruined” Star Wars by making new Star Wars movies that you don’t like. What is your definition of “ruining Star Wars”? I was taking it to mean that the franchise as a whole is tainted and its reputation harmed, not that the older movies are harmed or affected in any way. Disney has not done anything to the originals whatsoever. If anyone can be said to have “ruined Star Wars” in the direct sense, it’s George Lucas, who went back and edited the original movies to replace a lot of the impressive practical effects with really bad and dated CGI, and damaged Han’s character by making Greedo shoot first. [1]

But I’m going to assume we’re talking about ruining Star Wars as a franchise, since your resolution falls apart if we aren’t. I believe that the prequels damaged the reputation of Star Wars irreparably, and the sequels seem to have been made in part to undo and fix the damage they caused. You believe that the sequels have damaged the reputation of Star Wars. But you don’t seem to be naming many reasons why beyond minor nitpicks. The only concrete reasons you’ve given for why the sequels are bad have been 1. It gets the technical science of space travel wrong, 2. Snoke was a throwaway, and 3. Phasma was a throwaway. If you want to make a general point like that "the plot is bad", why not criticize the plot instead?

If you will still defend the science of the originals, let me ask you this. Why can we hear sound whenever there’s a battle in space? It’s a scientific fact that all sound needs matter to travel through, and because there’s so little matter in space, it would be impossible to hear anything. [2] By your logic, every Star Wars movie is terrible because of this scientific inaccuracy.

In response to what you said about Snoke, I agree that he wasn’t an amazing villain, but the way I see it, he wasn’t meant to be. He’s not the main villain of the story - Kylo is. Or the Emperor’s ghost, if that teaser trailer for Episode IX is anything to go by. I’d actually really hate it if they went that route, but as of right now, we don’t know. The way it is right now, Snoke was a plot device meant to make you think he’s the main villain, but subverting your expectations when he suddenly died. And I think there’s value to doing that in a story, because that genuinely caught me off guard and was a thrilling, exciting moment. I’ll admit that it does seem like the writers of TFA were setting Snoke up to be the bad guy, but I’m glad Rian Johnson went a different direction with it rather than giving us the exact same arc as the OT. It’s a bit sloppy, but I don’t see how that makes it a bad movie. I can point out similarly sloppy moments in the originals. Like the romance that was built up between Luke and Leia, before George Lucas suddenly decided that they were siblings.

I don’t see how your point about Phasma is relevant, though. She served her purpose as a minor villain, and died. Were you expecting them to delve into her backstory for 20 minutes of screentime? There are inevitably going to be minor characters in a movie. We simply don’t have time to explore all of them in depth. This is primarily Rey’s story, not Phasma’s. Besides, I think there’s something to be said for keeping a character mysterious. Boba Fett showed up for like a few minutes in Episode VI, but he stuck out in the cultural consciousness as one of the coolest characters in the whole trilogy. But when they actually showed his backstory in the prequels, it was...really bad. Some of the mystery and power of this character was taken away by showing him as a poorly-acted little boy. In the same way, I don’t see a problem with them leaving Phasma’s story mostly to your imagination.

You’re criticizing two relatively minor background characters. But when you talked about Rey and Kylo Ren, you admit that their story is “a good one”. Even if Snoke and Phasma were executed poorly as you say, isn’t that much less important than the two most important characters in the trilogy being executed well? You add that “movies aren’t made by the romance”. I’m not sure if it’s romance, friendship, or a sibling-like connection, but I don’t see why you’re dismissive of character interaction. That’s what makes a movie worth watching, in my opinion. Movies about spaceships shooting lasers are a dime a dozen, but what makes Star Wars stand out is the great characters.

You claim that the ST doesn’t have any bad-a moments like Vader’s appearance in Rogue One. What about the fight that went down after Snoke was killed? I thought that was one of the best lightsaber battles in any Star Wars movie, maybe even the best. And lastly you claim that the trailers for the sequel trilogy are like cash-grabbing lies. Now this is a point that I completely agree with. They’re false advertising and are calculated only to trick people into buying tickets. However, we’re not talking about the trailers here. We’re only talking about the movies themselves, as you have specified in your description.

Sources:

Round 3
Pro
If you will still defend the science of the originals, let me ask you this. Why can we hear sound whenever there’s a battle in space?

The sound is thematic. It isn't shown to be heard by the characters in the story. It is a theatrical embellishment. If you took it away, the movies would be less entertaining, and definitely less memorable for its sound, but they would still be great movies with sound (pun unintended) plots. The scientific inaccuracies I pointed out are plot holes, faulty logic that render the story impossible

If you want to make a general point like that "the plot is bad", why not criticize the plot instead?
I am criticizing the plot! That was the entire point of the plot holes!

I don’t see how your point about Phasma is relevant, though. She served her purpose as a minor villain, and died. Were you expecting them to delve into her backstory for 20 minutes of screentime?
I didn't expect them to delve into the character, really. But they clearly set up an interesting character only to kill her off. And then it seemed that they wanted to bring her back for a little bit, then changed their minds. 

You add that “movies aren’t made by the romance”. I’m not sure if it’s romance, friendship, or a sibling-like connection, but I don’t see why you’re dismissive of character interaction. That’s what makes a movie worth watching, in my opinion.
I went on to say that movies are about conflict, which is just as much character interaction as romance. That's why movies like to introduce love triangles. It creates conflict. 
I would also like to remind you what Snoke said to Rey about the relationship between her and Kylo Ren. "It was I who bridged your minds. I stoked Ren's conflicted soul."
In other words, Rey+Ben was not only a romance contrived by the screenwriters, but by Snoke as well. It is literally artificial. Ren was conflicted in the first place because of his parents and Rey's connection to them. The mind-bridging strengthened his doubt, and made him think they're somehow connected to each other. Add that to being a hormonal teen/young adult and Boom! Instant romance.
Ren's turn to the light and defeat of Snoke would be more interesting if it wasn't literally just the OT's plot all over again.


Would you like another plot criticism? Fine.
Starkiller base was just another Death Star. Nothing original. BB-8 is just a new R2-D2. 

You claim that the ST doesn’t have any bad-a moments like Vader’s appearance in Rogue One.
I meant to say that it gave us a Bad-A fighting Vader that Vader isn't in any other appearance. If it sounded like I meant there were no other Bad-A moments in all of Star Wars, that was not my intention.

about Snoke, I agree that he wasn’t an amazing villain, but the way I see it, he wasn’t meant to be.
I think it is made clear in TFA that they intended for him to be the mysterious hand behind everything, the way Sidious was, but instead he gets himself killed by fostering a Rey/Ren relationship. This is really just another example of how TFA and TLJ feel disjointed. Several plot points that TFA felt like it was leading up to were abandoned, and the new plot points felt tacked on. They managed to keep the Luke/Rey training, but even that was only a cliched redo of Luke/Yoda, but with a little more character depth on the "old hermit Jedi master" role. Most of that was because the OT allowed Luke to have built-in depth. The prequels obviously couldn't have that. 

A point in defense of the prequels is that most people don't make prequels. The only of thing that comes to mind in cinema is The Hobbit, which was based off a book that wasn't a prequel, so it felt more natural. It is entirely plausible to assume that many of the problems with the prequels are common problems for prequels to have.

Con
The sound is thematic. It isn't shown to be heard by the characters in the story. It is a theatrical embellishment.
So, you have admitted that the story we see on the screen isn’t necessarily an accurate portrait of what happened in the Star Wars universe. In that case, couldn’t I argue that all the plot holes you mention are just “theatrical embellishment” as well? If you think I’m just being facetious, then tell me: By what metric are you deciding whether or not something “really happened” in a movie? What rules are telling you what counts as “embellishment” and what doesn’t? Because it seems to me that you’re only dismissing my point about sound in space because it’s inconvenient for your argument.

Also, I question your claim that the fuel plot hole in TLJ “renders the story impossible”. I didn’t really think about it at first, since I still hold that it’s an unimportant detail, but as I thought about your argument, it doesn’t really make sense to me. You argue that the ships would be alright because, even without fuel, an object in space would naturally stay in perpetual motion in the same direction. But that’s exactly what was happening in the movie. They didn’t need fuel because they would stop moving if they ran out; they needed fuel in order to pick up speed and have a chance at escaping this standoff with the First Order ship. If they ran out, they would be stuck in perpetual motion, unable to change course or steer away from any obstacles - and that’s the problem they’re trying to solve. Of course, there are plenty of ways the First Order could have captured them faster, but that doesn't necessarily make the story “impossible”. And certainly no reason to dismiss everything else in the movie.

In other words, Rey+Ben was not only a romance contrived by the screenwriters, but by Snoke as well. It is literally artificial.
How is that a bad thing, though? I find it interesting that this connection between the two was deliberately engineered by one of the villains. It’s a neat new take on the “hero loves the bad guy” trope. I don’t see why you’re insistent on labelling this an “instant romance” though. I have no idea whether romance is the direction they’re taking this. A lot of modern movies are setting out to prove that men and women can just be good friends, and defy the cliche that they always have to end up together by the end. This might very well be the case here. And if it is a romance, they’re taking it quite slowly.

Ren's turn to the light and defeat of Snoke would be more interesting if it wasn't literally just the OT's plot all over again.
Many critics of the sequels lashed out at Force Awakens for being too similar to the originals, then lashed out at The Last Jedi for being too different. TLJ has its problems, but I don’t think anyone’s saying that it’s too much like old-school Star Wars. Rian Johnson was deliberately trying to avoid doing the OT’s plot all over again, and people gave him hell for doing it, so I’m a little perplexed at this comment. How is The Last Jedi a rehash of any of the original movies?

Starkiller base was just another Death Star. Nothing original. BB-8 is just a new R2-D2.
Now you’re talking. I agree completely about Starkiller, and to a lesser extent about BB-8. The First Order is meant to be some kind of guerrilla terrorist group, so how did they get the funding to build a version of the Death Star that’s like 20 times bigger than the one made by the Empire? It doesn’t make any sense, and that’s a genuine problem. But I still enjoy the themes and characters and plotlines that the sequels are exploring, which matter more to me than pointing out unrealistic events in a universe of laser swords, space worms, and teddy bear people. And besides, as I mentioned before, the problem of too much similarity to the originals has already been addressed in The Last Jedi.

They managed to keep the Luke/Rey training, but even that was only a cliched redo of Luke/Yoda,
The young apprentice studying under the old, wise master is an archetype which goes back to some of the earliest stories we know of. Arthur and Merlin. Jason and Chiron. Gilgamesh and Utnapishtim. I could argue that Luke’s training under Yoda is just a “redo” of these earlier stories, but I don’t like to look at it that way. It’s just another version of this trope which is as old as history itself. Stories influence one another, and common elements can always be found. Rey’s training under Luke is similar enough to invite comparison, but different enough to feel new and unique. George Lucas was a big fan of parallels like these in stories. It’s not a copy of the original, but to use a famous Lucas quote, “It’s like poetry…[stories] rhyme. Every stanza kind of rhymes with the last one.”

Finally, you defend the prequels by saying that their problems arose simply from the fact that they were prequels. I disagree with this. There are plenty of examples of prequels that turned out good: X-Men First Class, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Better Call Saul. Even several Shakespeare plays, such as Richard II and Henry V, served as prequels to ones he had written earlier. In the hands of a capable storyteller, a prequel isn’t inherently harder to do. And even if they were, I don’t think most prequels suffer from incoherent writing, wooden acting, and horrific special effects to the extent that the Star Wars prequels do.

Back to the main argument, you have been pointing out some minor problems with the sequels, but "ruined" is a very strong claim. One that's going to require some strong evidence to back it up. And so far, your arguments seem to be proving that the sequels are somewhat flawed movies, not that they're complete disasters which have destroyed the saga's reputation for good, as one would expect with such a strong word. You could make a solid case that Disney is ruining Star Wars with the endless loads of sequels they're planning to dump on us every year. Or that the Star Wars fandom has been ruined by the endless fearmongering over "SJWs". But by limiting yourself to the 2 existing movies of the sequel trilogy, you've severely limited what arguments you can make. That's just my commentary on the debate so far.
Round 4
Pro
Due to general business in my life, I will be missing this round. I will return for the final round.
Con
That's quite alright. I await your final arguments in Round 5.
Round 5
Pro
 By what metric are you deciding whether or not something “really happened” in a movie? What rules are telling you what counts as “embellishment” and what doesn’t? Because it seems to me that you’re only dismissing my point about sound in space because it’s inconvenient for your argument.
Characters interact with lightsabers and the Force. They do not interact with the "sound" of starfighters. Han Solo never hears a TIE fighter flying behind him or anything like that. It's the same with the film score. No character is hearing the Imperial March play. (Except in that scene in Solo.) If a character gave an indication that they could hear sound through the vacuum of space, then that would be a plot hole.

So, you have admitted that the story we see on the screen isn’t necessarily an accurate portrait of what happened in the Star Wars universe. In that case, couldn’t I argue that all the plot holes you mention are just “theatrical embellishment” as well?
Now we're getting into a discussion on whether the things depicted in the movies are "real" fiction or "fictional" fiction. Did Solo ever make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs? Was the Force real? Assuming that this is a "real" fiction, yes. If not, then we're seeing a story within a story, in which case I should criticize the inner story for having "theatrical embellishments." But either way, the plot holes are illogical, and should be criticized. If the inner story has a problem with understanding space travel, then I can also criticize the outer story for not noticing the problem.

 You argue that the ships would be alright because, even without fuel, an object in space would naturally stay in perpetual motion in the same direction. But that’s exactly what was happening in the movie. They didn’t need fuel because they would stop moving if they ran out; they needed fuel in order to pick up speed and have a chance at escaping this standoff with the First Order ship. If they ran out, they would be stuck in perpetual motion, unable to change course or steer away from any obstacles - and that’s the problem they’re trying to solve.
1. They already have speed. That's a fact of perpetual motion.
2.If they need the fuel to avoid being stuck going in a straight line, then they should conserve fuel until they need it to avoid obstacles or change course. 

 Of course, there are plenty of ways the First Order could have captured them faster, but that doesn't necessarily make the story “impossible”. And certainly no reason to dismiss everything else in the movie.
I don't dismiss everything else in the movie. But if a fuel crisis is impossible, than none of the events resulting from a fuel crisis should have occurred, such as the rebel ships that the First Order destroyed. Those ships, assuming they ran out of fuel, would have kept up the same speed rather than drifting behind as they do in the movie.

In other words, Rey+Ben was not only a romance contrived by the screenwriters, but by Snoke as well. It is literally artificial.
How is that a bad thing, though?
Because society shouldn't supported contrived romance! If you could make me feel that I supported a terrorist group, I would tell you that to do so would violate who I am. The entire point of romance is that it is your choice who you love. Rey's forced feelings are like having your spouse chosen for you by a random stranger.

Many critics of the sequels lashed out at Force Awakens for being too similar to the originals, then lashed out at The Last Jedi for being too different. TLJ has its problems, but I don’t think anyone’s saying that it’s too much like old-school Star Wars. Rian Johnson was deliberately trying to avoid doing the OT’s plot all over again, and people gave him hell for doing it, so I’m a little perplexed at this comment. How is The Last Jedi a rehash of any of the original movies?
Does "Dark Apprentice defeats his Master after being shown the light in himself by the main protagonist" Ring any bells for Return of the Jedi? Vader, Palpatine, and Luke? Now look at The Last Jedi. Ren, Snoke, and Rey fit the same roles.

There are plenty of examples of prequels that turned out good: X-Men First Class, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Better Call Saul. Even several Shakespeare plays, such as Richard II and Henry V, served as prequels to ones he had written earlier. In the hands of a capable storyteller, a prequel isn’t inherently harder to do. And even if they were, I don’t think most prequels suffer from incoherent writing, wooden acting, and horrific special effects to the extent that the Star Wars prequels do.
I've only heard of half of those, so I'll work from there. I personally didn't like X-Men First Class, mainly because it creates character interactions between characters that ostensibly met for the first time in the original X-Men movie. (e.g. Mystique and Nightcrawler.) And if it's a rebooted timeline, then it's not a prequel, it's a new series with the same cast.
Temple of Doom wasn't very plot relevant to the other Indiana Jones movies. The movies were kinda like Tom and Jerry cartoons, with little continuity except the main character(s). In this respect, Temple of Doom is only a prequel in that it takes place first chronologically.
I have only heard of the Shakespeare plays, not read or watched them, so I don't know much. I do know that they were loosely based on history, so it would have been rather difficult to screw them up very badly. I also said that many of the prequels' problems came from being prequels, not all of them.
Prequels are definitely harder to write, by the way. Let's use the analogy of a dart. In a normal story, you just throw the dart, and it will land somewhere. In a prequel, there is a set target, and you have to hit it. Someone is bound to miss, and if it wasn't Star Wars, then it would have been someone else.

You could make a solid case that Disney is ruining Star Wars with the endless loads of sequels they're planning to dump on us every year. Or that the Star Wars fandom has been ruined by the endless fearmongering over "SJWs". But by limiting yourself to the 2 existing movies of the sequel trilogy, you've severely limited what arguments you can make.
I haven't limited myself in the way you say. Disney has released 4 Star Wars films. I in no way said I was criticizing only the sequel trilogy. So I will gladly tack on both of those excellent arguments you just made for me, which you have already conceded are "a solid case"

Thank you for the highly enjoyable debate.
Con
I will answer a few of your remaining arguments before moving to my conclusion.

If they need the fuel to avoid being stuck going in a straight line, then they should conserve fuel until they need it to avoid obstacles or change course. 
They were conserving the fuel as much as they could. It’d be hard to argue that things like light, oxygen, and communication aren’t a necessity in that situation. And if memory serves, they only used fuel to propel themselves forward whenever the First Order ships increased their speed. Your opening argument doesn’t hold up, and the fuel situation in The Last Jedi isn’t a plot hole.

Because society shouldn't supported contrived romance!...Rey's forced feelings are like having your spouse chosen for you by a random stranger.
Again, you’re jumping to the conclusion that Rey and Kylo’s connection has to be a romance. You’re also assuming that if it is a romance, then the movie has to support it. Not every romance in fiction has to be something society supports. In many parts of the world, marriages are arranged based on the parents’ choice, not love. And in any case, you haven’t offered a mote of evidence that Rey and Kylo’s connection has to be a romantic one, and ignored me when I questioned you on this.

Does "Dark Apprentice defeats his Master after being shown the light in himself by the main protagonist" Ring any bells for Return of the Jedi? Vader, Palpatine, and Luke? Now look at The Last Jedi. Ren, Snoke, and Rey fit the same roles.
What are you trying to prove? The thing you’re describing is one event that occurs in both movies; it's not as if the entire plot is the same. History repeating itself, in slightly differing ways, is a big theme in the Star Wars universe, as I demonstrated earlier with George Lucas' quote. It’s one of the few things I enjoy about the prequels. So as far as I can see, you’re only supporting the argument that I made.

And about what you said about prequels in general, I won’t respond to that, as we’re getting a little too far off track from the main debate. Instead, I’ll wrap things up and give my final case.

Conclusion

Pro’s job was to prove that “Disney ruined Star Wars”, but he never truly set out a main argument for why or how they were doing so. He relied mostly on pointing out minor plot holes and characters which were underutilized in his opinion. This, of course, doesn’t suggest that Star Wars was “ruined”, which is very strong phrasing for such small nitpicks. My main counter-arguments were to point out that the original movies and prequels had similar flaws, and in the case of the originals, this doesn’t stop them from being great. We ended up mostly countering each other’s counter-arguments, and I’m not sure that Pro ever ended up stating a thesis for why Disney ruined Star Wars.

I believe Star Wars’ lowest point was the moment The Phantom Menace released in 1999. I know I harped on the prequels a lot in this debate, but there was a point to that: to argue that Star Wars had already been ruined before. But since then, its reputation has recovered. To argue that Disney ruined Star Wars, you’d have to argue that the sequels sank to an even lower point. I don’t think Pro successfully argued as such. The sequels are flawed movies for sure. I like them, but I can understand why somebody might not. But in a debate setting, you’d have to do more than pick out minor flaws and scientific inaccuracies to prove that they’re such terrible movies.

In order to throw Pro a bone at the end of Round 3, I gave some suggestions of better points he might have made to truly prove that Disney ruined Star Wars. He had limited himself in the description by saying we could only use information from the main series movies, and I suggested different arguments he could’ve made if his rules had been different. These points were meant as a gesture of good will, to encourage different ways of thinking about topics in future debates. Instead, Pro stated that he’ll “gladly tack on” those arguments to his side (despite them violating his own rules), and acted as if I was admitting defeat by saying this. I’m sure this was a misunderstanding, but this was poor conduct on my opponent’s part. I don’t see debates as a game to be won, but as a discussion which both parties can benefit from. Not everything we say has to be an “owned with facts and logic”-style takedown. I’m fully willing to admit when I’m wrong, or when I think of a possible argument against me. That’s just a part of arguing in good faith, not an invitation to declare yourself the winner.

But in spite of little hiccups like this, I enjoyed this debate as well. Thank you too, and hope to debate you again in the future.