>>11111
for something to be objectively true it must be measurable. Given his track record he has accomplished very little. in fact his most noteworthy en devour is a failed flight maneuver resulting in the death of fellow cadet. physically he is very frail, his intelligence is a facade, more a projection of ego. he believes himself to be smarter than he actually is, and is coddled by his mother to not face reality, his a futuristic interpretation of a rick and morty fan.
But if we get into the abstract, that with gives us emotional connection to the character and an understanding of who they are, your claim holds more ground. Consider Spock and Data. They both have a difficulty understanding emotions, and have hard time going against logical computation in favor of a moral action, yet they do and can eventually learn to better understand the effects of morality outside of logic. people have always been torn by doing what is most logical and benificial against morality an vice versa. this gives there character an emotional resonance. Another example is Quark, it is very enjoyable to watch someone be devoid of that morale boundary and act purely of greed.
Now lets take a good hard look at will. he resonates all in negatives. he is like a reflection of the viewer that they do not wish to see. he reminds people of the traits they have and hate in others or remind people of when they used to be like that. in that regard he is objectively the best star trek character, as no other character produces such a strong emotional response as will does. even if it is loathing.