Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better?

The Star Wars Prequel movies add more to the world and mythology of Star Wars

Question: Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better?
Position‹2 of 2: The Prequels are better than the Sequels
Argument1 of 3›: The Star Wars Prequel movies add more to the world and mythology of Star Wars

Though following in the footsteps of the originals, the Prequels added more to the story by boldly blazing new trails and making the Star Wars story richer and more interesting.

The argument

The Prequels added so much more to the world of Star Wars. They charted the background of one of the most iconic villains of all time, and showed how an aspiring hero became corrupted into the menace we know today. They expanded on the lore of the Jedi, showing them in all their glory and might, but also in their ignorance and arrogance that led to their downfall. They showed the social and political background that gave rise to both the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance. The content in the Prequels gives Star Wars more substance, and makes the galaxy far, far away truly feel lived in. What consideration did the Sequels afford to the world around its protagonists? Besides a one-off war profiteering reference, they didn't add much. The world (or worlds) of the Sequels act as little more than backdrops for the escapades of the heroes. The settings are mere stages for the plot, and the people are mere devices. What's more, the content of the Sequels is essentially a rehash of the same basic beats of the original trilogy: an optimistic young Jedi turning a flawed villain against Palpatine. The Prequels had a much more original and daring story: a darker tale of tragedy and defeat. The Prequels not only innovated in terms of story, but also in terms of setting. They have an element of added substance that the Sequels lack.

Premises

[P1]A Star Wars trilogy is better to the extent it expands the world, mythology, and lore of the galaxy and tells an original story. [P2] The Prequels substantially expanded Star Wars by charting Anakin's fall, deepening Jedi lore, and depicting the political rise of the Empire, while telling an original tragic story. [P3] The Sequels added little to the world beyond backdrops for their heroes and largely rehashed the original trilogy's story beats. [C] Therefore, the Prequels are better than the Sequels because they add more to the world and mythology of Star Wars.

Counter-arguments

The "innovation" the Prequels introduced was terribly executed. Yes, they showed the story of Anakin Skywalker, but he was a thoroughly unlikable character who didn't resemble Darth Vader at all. Yes, they showed the politics of the Republic-turned-Empire, but it was boring and tedious; and was it really necessary in the first place? The Prequels added new things, but they messed up badly in doing so. The Sequels added content to the Star Wars canon that was much better executed. Old Luke and Kylo Ren's arcs were both more compelling than Anakin's, and put unique spins on the original story formula. And new ways to use the Force are more interesting than trade deals. When it comes to innovation, the Sequels are superior.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The criterion rewards quantity of lore over quality of film, and it is contestable on its face: a trilogy can add a great deal to a fictional world while being worse to watch, which is exactly what the opposing position claims. [Rejecting P2] The additions are contested rather than agreed. The fall of Anakin is widely faulted for its execution, and explaining the mechanics and politics behind the Force and the Jedi is regarded by many viewers as diminishing what the earlier films left implied. [Rejecting P3] The comparison understates what the later films added — an aged and disillusioned hero, a villain caught between sides, a treatment of legacy and failure — and 'rehash' is a charge from which a trilogy retracing the origins of an already-known outcome is not obviously exempt.