Reflection on Kierkegaard vs Nietzsche debate

Firstly, I'm going to post my question and response on my blog.

What is the most fundamental aspect of the human condition?
We’ve defined the human condition as the experiences of being human. So then, Nietzsche asks, What motivates us as human beings? What wills us to do things?
The Will to Power. This is broken down into 3 parts.
Will to Power:

• Primal Will - The primal will is all about CHOICE. It is the basis of consciousness. This was influenced by Schopenhauer’s emphasis on will, specifically of the "will to live". This primal will allows us to exist. Example: you choose to be born.
• Child’s Will - Born from the primal will, b/c we cannot isolate the will, the Child’s will is all about survival. Individual self-affirmation over doubt. “the spirit now will’s its own will” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) “sacred yes of the child”; saying yes to life
• Will to Power - The final “stage”, the will to power is about looking to achieve the ability to be powerful in all situations. You are the master of your own destiny (which is motivated by your want for power)

The person who achieves this will to power, has done so through conscious action.
We’ll touch on this later, but the “good” and “bad”, the “master and slave” morality which we’ll get to later is all about the good having this “will to power” and the bad not having it, and thus wanting it.
In conclusion, Mr. Summers said that "We either do or we do not," a very concise way of saying that we are given a choice (primal will) and then we must make a decision (a child's will). This leads to the will to power.

That was my response to our first question.

In reflection about both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard though, I feel that it is almost odd to debate them, as they aren't exactly opposites of each other. True, they each have different methods for thinking about the human condition, with Nietzsche thinking of the Will to Power and Kierkegaard thinking about his atheistic, ethical, and faith stages (the teleological suspension of the ethical), but I feel as if the main point of contention is just that - how they deal with this "fear and trembling" that comes with being human. However, the methods in which they deal with it aren't directly opposing. Nietzsche is focusing on the present, on the Dionysian pleasure, while Kierkegaard is focusing on attempting to escape this suffering through religion. They are both just simply existentialists who have different opinions on the role that religion should play in the daily life of the average human.