Wow, seriously? not even one person does star wars vs star trek?

I was going to explain how TLOTR kicks Harry Potter's teen marketed ass, but the vacuum of Star-things on this blog has convinced me to do otherwise.
To preface this argument I would like to make a few observations for the sake of fairness. Anything made after Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek's creator)'s death does not count. That means Ep. 1-3 of Star-Wars, the new Trekkie film, and a few other spin-offs like Deep Space 9. This is because around this time, both series began to degrade substantially. Case in point, the Attack of the Clones sucked donkey balls. The Next Generation still counts because it was started in 1987 before the death of Roddenberry in 1991 (and regardless of your Kirk/Picard allegiance, it cannot be said that TNG was a bad series).
In my eyes, star trek has one thing going for it that Star wars does not -- a decent opening. The concise yet profound opening phrase followed by the star-ship Enterprise still gives even the most jaded of fans spine chills. Just saying "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." can make you sound like the billionaire-rockstar-astronaut-cowboy you always wanted to be. By comparison, reading the long and often confusing Star-Wars intro at the beginning of each movie is about as enjoyable as finishing those TPS reports you were supposed to turn in last week. However, beyond the introductions, Star Trek begins to lose its luster.
Visually, Star-Wars is quite stunning. With the razors edge of 1970's tech, we get huge space-ship battles and lighsabers and floating rocks and crazy space explosions and of course a wireframe rendering of a deadly corridor. Today, these effects are just okay, but back in the 70's, this was some hot stuff! Star-Wars had a wigged out trashcan and an expressionless but hysterical tin man who could speak 10000 languages; Star Trek had a boring greyish meat sack named Data. Star-Wars had giant slug things and sand people and ewoks and wookies; Star Trek had a bunch of dudes with wrinkled foreheads. Star-Wars was just more cinematic. And on that note, John Williams had some great music as well. Star Trek tunes weren't exactly phenomenal, but Vader's theme and the main theme and, well, pretty much all the themes in Star-Wars were memorable and musical.
Aside from pure superficiality though, Star-Wars was just a better story. Whereas star wars plot devices include a legitimately surprising father-son dynamic, a coming of age story, the most deadly weapon to ever exist in movie history, and the force, Star Trek had borgs, who basically just wanted to be your friend, a black chick (yes this was a plot device back in the 60's), and the occasional death of an extra "red shirt," a jaded plot device eerily reminiscent of Bonanza's female ranch hands. Star-Wars has a grand story arc that star trek just cant match. Star-Wars also has a cast of characters that feel real and act real while many Star Trek Characters, looking at you Scottie, often just fall flat on their faces in the development department. In the end Star-Wars is literally an epic tale, and Star Trek is just a pretty okay TV show.

Edit: alright, I stand corrected, Ned Katz actually had a good argument going.