I guess its human nature to compare things with similarities--no matter how light. For decades, we watched fans and media talking heads compare: Star Trek v. Star Wars. in the first half of the 1970s, it was Star Trek v. Space:1999. DC Comics v. Marvel Comics. The Beatles v. The Rolling Stones. Michael Jackson v. Prince (which said something else, as you could not find more dissimilar musical acts). American Idol v. America's Got Talent. Babylon 5 v. Deep Space 9. Alien v. Predator--before that became a reality. Superman v. Captain Marvel (nevermind National's lawsuit against Fawcett Comics). ...and so on. Most on this list have few to no similarities and are very much their own animal, but like kids, the "my _______is better than yours" crap turns everything into a ego/competition exercise. Much nonsense.
This is the appropriate place to once again bring up David Brin's "Star Wars is fascist" argument. The funny thing is, I agree with his analysis but don't think it's a condemnation of Star Wars - but rather evidence that people like fascism enough to spend money on it. And what's the harm, they're buying toys and movie tickets, not voting for political candidates. Let them indulge in a little power-fantasy fascism, it's just for fun. (And then make them watch an equal amount of Star Trek as the antidote.) If Lucas had embraced the inherent fascism of his creation rather than running away from it, the prequels wold have been much better. He should have recognized that Darth Vader was the most popular of the OT characters back when the movies were first released (something I'm old enough to remember first hand) because of the fascistic appeal of unchecked power. Anakin should have been cool like Vader was cool. He could still be chucked in he volcano at the end as his comeuppance, so that the overall message is, "fascism is bad, mkay?" but it would have been fun to watch him up till that point. Sabotaging him by making him a whiney weakling was the worst thing Lucas could have done. But if Star Wars is best handled by fascists, Lucas selling out to Disney bodes very well for the franchise's health.
Well, one thing that can be said for the Star Trek world is that it can give hope that what we know in the here and now isn't where it will all end. Star Wars is in a galaxy FAR FAR away. Star Trek is in the HERE, just not now. It shows how it is possible for the problems of the twenty and twenty-first centuries to eventually become obsolete. So in essence, one big draw for Trek is the HOPE that humanity can grow and not just eliminate ourselves through war and intolerance.
Farscape is the best science fiction franchise, so this argument is invalid. And Firefly managed to do what neither of the "Star" franchises ever did by never having a bad episode. Also BSG before New Caprica.
Firefly had so few episodes, how can you compare it to shows that ran for years? maybe the bad episodes were still to come. And if episode quality is the measure you're using, then Farscape couldn't be in the running because that show was all over the map in terms of quality.
1) The debate is silly. The only thing those shows have in common is the word "Star"; therefore, the only people qualified to draw parallels are all called Matt Groening. On account of lulziness. 2) Your friend's arguments are really terrible. - Popularity? If popularity equals quality, Lady Gaga is a better composer than Beethoven; Transformers 2 & Titanic better movies than Citizen Kane & 12 Angry Men; Green Day a better band than Dissection (obviously impossible, as Storm of the Light's Bane is perfection in musical form); a coloured square into another coloured square (contemporary paintings are often that ridiculous - and people gobble them up) better painting than Bruegel's The Tower of Babel. If there's any correlation between popularity and quality, it's inverse, not direct. - Quality of the CGI? If he judges a movie solely on its CGI, he's going to miss out on a lot of great movies with no CGI whatsoever. I'm also not certain the CGI quality is better in Wars: ENT had some very good CGI. - Budget? Seriously? With the exception of some specific genres of movies (porn, action, martial arts,...), plot and dialogue should be the measuring stick of quality and on that front, Wars' manichean fare doesn't rate high. 3) Some of your own arguments are invalid, notably the Jar Jar one: Star Wars has Jar Jar, Star Trek has Neelix. I've never seen any Wars movie in its entirety, but I highly doubt Jar Jar is worse than Neelix.