Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better?

The Star Wars Sequel movies have better scripts and actors than the Prequel movies

Question: Are the Star Wars Movies Prequels or Sequels better?
Position1 of 2›: The Sequels are better than the Prequels
Argument‹2 of 3›: The Star Wars Sequel movies have better scripts and actors than the Prequel movies

Dialogue in the Prequels ranged from nap-inducing to cringe-inducing, and the actors' performances didn't help. By contrast, the Sequel scripts pop off the page, and they're helped by great actors.

The argument

The Prequels are infamous for their terrible dialogue. Take Anakin's lousy attempt at flirting for example, that ended up being a tirade about sand. Or think of all the dry, boring, tedious politics talk, including that of Padme Amidala. Or just look up anything Jar Jar Binks said. Not only were the scripts terrible, but the actors did little to help. The Prequels have been lampooned for its actors not exactly being up to par. Hayden Christenson in particular did no favors portraying a young Darth Vader. He simply lacked the charisma and the emotion needed to sell a tragic character; rather important, considering whom he was portraying. And he received no guidance from George Lucas, who wrote and directed the films. The Sequels have no such problems. The lines for the characters are words that real people would actually say. And they're delivered by actors in a real, believable manner. Stars such as Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, and Adam Driver deliver really compelling performances. Driver in particular portrays the pathos of a tragic villain or antihero as Kylo Ren better than Christenson ever did with Anakin. Nothing is phoned in; script and actor work hand-in-hand in the Sequels. The bad dialogue in the Sequels resulted from a combination of poor writing and poor acting. Fortunately, the Sequels have neither issue. Their writers and actors took special care not to repeat the mistakes of the Prequels. As a result, their lines and characters are much more enjoyable to watch and listen to.

Premises

[P1]The Prequels suffer from poorly written dialogue and weak acting performances, exemplified by tedious political speeches, Jar Jar Binks, and Hayden Christensen's flat portrayal of Anakin. [P2] The Sequels feature naturalistic dialogue and compelling performances from actors like Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, and Adam Driver, whose Kylo Ren conveys tragic pathos far better than Christensen's Anakin. [P3] The quality of a Star Wars film depends substantially on the strength of its script and acting. [C] Therefore, the Sequels are better than the Prequels because they have superior scripts and actors.

Counter-arguments

There are plenty of great actors and outstanding performances in the Prequels. Ewan McGregor, Christopher Lee, and Ian McDiarmid are a few examples of actors who stand out in the trilogy. And the performance of the other actors is enjoyed by more people than given credit for. Many children grew up with Hayden Christenson as Anakin and liked him in the role. The Sequels are not immune to bad dialogue either. "Saving what we love" and "They fly now?" stand out as ridiculed lines from the movies. And even if the actors were good, the characters usually weren't. Rey was not nearly as memorable a protagonist as Anakin; Snoke was such a bad villain they ended up going back to Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine anyway.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The examples are the most-quoted low points rather than a survey. The same films contain performances widely praised — McGregor, Lee, McDiarmid — and the premise does not weigh them at all. [Rejecting P2] This is contested on exactly the same terms. The sequels have their own catalogue of ridiculed lines, and character memorability is generally where critics find them weaker rather than stronger. [Rejecting P3] Script and acting are one axis among several. Design, score, worldbuilding, choreography and narrative coherence across a trilogy all bear on which set is better, and the premise selects the criterion on which its case is strongest. [Rejecting C] The comparison does not hold across the trilogies as wholes. Both are internally uneven, and setting the weakest moments of one against the strongest of the other is what most of the argument consists in.