There is as little to debate in INS as in I, Borg or Measure of a Man. The Feds do not steal or kidnap and if they do it is unambiguously wrong and the mistakes are amended like the main characters in TUC or FC do.
TNG was not DS9 and did not feature many ethical dilemmas. It was most often fairly black and white and if you want to accuse INS of not being something else, an ethical dilemma or a Heart of Darkness like story (As pointed out above, you can go to the dark side in Trek but only if you return; if you stay you change the very fundamentals of Trek. Let's not forget that Sisko did just allow Garak to kill a few people, he did not steal from another species, kidnap them and condemn them to die. And my impression is that people who want to push the boundaries further than DS9 under the disguise of "ethical dilemmas" basically want the franchise to become something authoritarian like BSG, a show which featured many pseudo-dilemmas which just served to validate its political-ideological position. TNG was at least more honest about its blunt left-liberalism.) instead of a typical righteous Picard vs. the evil Admiral type of story, you would have to say the same thing about TNG in general.
In my eyes the main problem of INS is that Picard's correct position got intertwined with the pubescent effects of the planet, thus deluting the decent motivations of the crew. Not to mention that the fanwank / continuity obsession / eternal reptition of the same already started back then, the movie tried to be TNG's TSFS but the rebellion did not feel as natural as in TSFS (and I doubt that it would have worked significantly better without the fountain of youth).
Last edited by horatio : 06-03-2013 at 07:36 AM.