The Instigator
lind010
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
OpinionatedMan
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Practical effects are better than CGI

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
OpinionatedMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,178 times Debate No: 20566
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

lind010

Pro

In today's film world, CGI runs rampant. In the past CGI was used mostly to supplement practical effects, or was not even used at all. However now CGI is used for full effects, in almost every movie, and is easily noticeable. I as a make-up and special effects artist see CGI at its worst when it is used in feature films in place of make up, and especially in place of simple effects like bullet wounds, or cuts, or even just used for blood! I believe CGI takes away from the film. It takes away from the artists who spend their whole lives learning to do practical effects with there hands, and takes away creativity of the artists. The most noticeably bad CGI is seen in the genre of films wich I love most, Horror. CGI is the "future" if directors don't step up soon and use it simply as a tool, rather than a whole product.
OpinionatedMan

Con

If you were to observe the limitations of practical effects, you would begin to understand the benefits of CGI. Of course it's much more realistic than a computer just like a real movie is more realistic than an animated version of it. However, what CGI enables is something as spectacular as avatar to be made.

What many people of today's age are beginning to understand is that art is imagination represented into a format for other's to interpret. Let us say you imagined a film about talking ants, do you think there is a possible way to create this without CGI? However let us stick to effects only.

When it comes to effects; nothing compres to CGI. Sure a wound made by a flour mix looks a bit more realistic than one edited onto the arm on a computer but in the end the art and the effect is the same unless one chooses to zoom into their screen by 100x or some ridiculous amount where the difference between a real video and CGi pixellation can be observed. I am passionate about technology and do not understand all these sentimental musicians or 'practicalists' (I am aware that is not a word but it serves its purpose).

In an analogical sense I can say the the 80's bands; The Beatles, Queen, Elton John and ABBA all made fabulous pieces of music with 'real' physical instrument playing. Nonetheless, the music produced by some DJ's who have either remixed 80's songs or created wonderful electro pieces is also absolutely fantastic. I do not see any reason to see it as less or more suited to its purpose merely based on the fact that a computer was used to artifically generate it?

If the result is near perfection in terms of representing what the artist, in this case the film director, had in mind then I believe using CGI to enable this representation is by all means fantastic. There is not reason to hate it because it is 'computer generated' if the result it equally, if not more, artistic and creative. Let us see the purpose of a film; to entertain its audience whilst delivering a message or representing a storyline consisting of several characters. Then let us understand the purpose of effects; to enhance or significantly represent what the artist (film director) imagined and display it very realistically for viewer's to comprehend and feel the full effect of (this was why is was called effects, to give a desired visual effect). So if computer generated images give a fantastic image of a creature (such as Smeagol/Gollum from L.O.T.R.) that practical effects would have wasted far more time and materials to create then I say go CGI! Even something as simple as the wound of a warrior who just lost a battle (for example in the film 300) would have means a lot of red paste and flour mixed skin when CGI editing not only can create beautiful and exact shades of red and motion of blood but also can do it in a faster amount of time than physically making a fake wound for every warrior.

In conclusion, in terms of time, material and cost effectiveness when showing very in-depth artificial characters (which was specifically why George Lucas waited to make the first three Star Wars movies after the last Three since the first three simply had too many people int he battle scenes for practical effects to handle) I believe there is sufficient evidence and past examples to prove that despite the inauthenticity of the method to produce the effect, the effects themselves, certainly on a large scene with many unreal characters, are better produced by CGi than practical effects.
Debate Round No. 1
lind010

Pro

I see where you argue CGI is Useful and I do agree with the fact that it does require less material and is not as messy as say a practical effect would be. As in how you mentioned putting a wound on every warrior in 300 would be. However, time wise CGI takes even more time to put a wound on every warrior. For example, in each shot any real warrior (physically in the shot at any moment) can only range to about 1-15 people you can see wounded at the time. As that films are shot in sequences that may only use about 15 people for the day, doing the same shot for hours at a time. But Keeping time in mind, for a single make up artist, they can do about 50 small or great wounds in an hour. I know this because I was a make-up artist at a haunted house this past year, with about 1 year of experience I had to do, alone, 45 peoples make up in an hour. All of witch were to be zombies. When it comes to make up and effects, when someone is at a distance from the camera or viewer and injury may only have to be a single smear of dark makeup placed across in a line on someone's face or body to look good enough for the shot. With CGI, an editor has to go in, frame by frame on each individual and place the wound on the body for as many frames as the character is in the shot (This could be hundreds of frames, and individuals) and needs to render each of those frames. This process could take hours, or even days to use it, and complete the edited scene on the film. And even with the risk of the computer crashing and losing that work, they would have to do it all over again.
The point I am really trying to make here is that, The only time you would need to do make up on hundreds of people, would be for a very large, wide shot, where half of the people would not even need make-up or wounds on them, because for a shot that massive, the distance of the camera to the individuals is so great, you wouldn't need make up on most of them, because you would not be able to see it anyway. The only time you would be able to argue is during the close ups, where a wound made with latex and corn-syrup blood looks much more real than a cgi, digital prosthetic.
Another point I would like to argue is the creativity factor. Where CGI takes away from an artist. when an effect is done physically, it requires an artist to really think of a way they can get the effect to look as real as possible. The best example of this is in the original Nightmare on Elm Street and the recent remake. Specifically the scene where one of the female characters is getting attacked by Freddy in her dream and rolls up the wall, onto the ceiling and back onto the bed to be torn open. In the original, creators had to find a way to get her up the ceiling. Together they created rotating room and camera rig to get the shot, but in the new one, they cgi'd her body, and flung her around the room. Not only does it make the effect less creative. But it takes away from the feeling of the scene. Not to mention it makes the scene, lazy, when done with CGI.
Taking from the last example of the nightmare on elm street movies, and one of CGI's worst qualities is the digital prosthetic used for Freddy's face instead of make-up. In the remake Freddy looks like an avatar, and in certain scenes even you can see his Prosthetic not quite synchronized to his face. This is a great example again of CGI's time consuming process. Rather than going into 2-3 hours of make up or less before each shoot. after shooting is completed a CGI artist must go in and Put on Freddy's face in every single frame, at every detailed angle for the shots to even work. witch takes months.
The last point I'd like to bring up this round is that CGI also takes away from the actors. When an actor is faced with a physical puppet or effect. It leaves less up to their imagination and can even bring out an incredible performance when they can interact with something physical that reacts back to them. For this example I will point out that In the 2nd Harry potter movie, they had used CGI to supplement a practical effect witch was the Basilisk. This is where CGI is ok, as it just aids a animatronic, rather than solely existing on its own with no physical object. Anyway, my point, the animatronic was so real that It scared the Children and the actor so much that the performances given were real, they were genuinely scared. Bringing their performances to a whole new level. Something you just can't get without a physical effect.
OpinionatedMan

Con

I admit that in extreme close-up scenes it is unquestionably ridiculous to use CGI instead of make-up. However, the majority of scenes in a film are not close-ups. In addition, the majority of films involving many effects are, horror, thriller, sci-fi, adventure or action movies. In all these movies there are several scenarios where the massive battle-scene shots take place.

I would, however, like to begin with rebuttals before I move on to the constructive. You mention how using practical effects increases an artist's creativity since they have to come up with the most creative way to make it seem real. I believe this is an absolutely incorrect statement. Implementing CGI into a film does no inherently mean not at all using practical effects. It takes nothing away form the artist's creativity and , if anything, adds entirely new ways to be creative (creating the dementors in harry potter: The Prisoner of Azkaban would have looked ridiculous if it was meant with cloaks hanging on strings.) therefore, an artis's ability to be creative is only increased with use of CGI.

The second point raised was that of one or two examples of failed CGI attempts in horror movies when compared with the practical effects method. Perhaps your opinion is valid and these movies contained rather poor quality CGI but these are two anomalies amongst the many successful CGI movies created. Sure, a zombie looks better with a make-up covered human being compared with an artificially generated zombie avatar but horror movies involving skeletons, robots (or the sci-fi film Terminator) and ghosts all look far better with the CGi version of that character (this can be observed when looking at the first Terminator which used a real robot with fake skin on it, that moved in such a fake way and was actually made using stop-motion).

Now, let's observe older werewolf movies and compare them with the Twilight Saga or even with 'The Vampire Diaries'. The vampires and werewolves in older films looked fairly real but the vampires looked like a pathetic attempt at putting fake teeth and make up on a human (as opposed to a genuine vampire). Without any contradiction, it ca be stated that the effect of the transformation of a human to a werewolf or a human to their hunting vampire form is far superior using CGI methods as compared with the former practical method. It might be more time consuming but looks so real and far more creative than a human with a hairy outfit or with lathered white make-up and red contact lenses.

CGI does not lessen an artist's ability to be creative it merely enable entirely new way in which to create an artificial character or make big-scale battles or even completely superior battles (when comparing the battle scenes of the first three Star Wars movies, which used CGi compared with the former-made last three which use zoomed-in metal robots and lasers.

in conclusion, CGI is far more efficient than practical effects when used correctly (rendering your horror movie point invalid). It might be less time efficient on close-ups but in big bttle scenes it make far more realistic battles and blood-shed.
Debate Round No. 2
lind010

Pro

Ok, so first of all I would like to state, The twilight movies are not horror genre (as hard as studios push them to be) their not, but that is a whole other debate to be had. Secondly, yes in Sci-fi genre movies battle scenes in ships and war are better. That is because that is a point of CG supplementing Practical effects. My argument is stated that CG can not stand on its own as well as a practical effect. However, back to the statement of large war and battle scenes, think about one of the all time greatest battle scenes, D-day in Saving Private Ryan. It is known to be one of the best war scenes of all time and shot with little to know CG effects whatsoever. This being true among most war movies. In these films you can feel the battlefield much better. Real dust kicking up from real blasts, Squibs blowing out from a persons body with blood and bone, muzzle flashes from blank rounds, the guts spilling from the soldiers. The dirt on their faces, something CG could never portray better than any kind of practical effects. And referring back to twilight and werewolves, in American werewolves in London, There is the greatest werewolves transformation of all time all done practically. Twilight artists are very mediocre, sure the teeth looked alright but their are more practical effects in other vampire films like 30 days of night that their practical teeth look much better. You can not only look at how far CG has come but how far practical effects have come as well.
Now of course CG would have to be done for an outer space scenes, because we can't shoot films in space. But even the classic star wars films that only had basic CG looked way better. Witch brings me to my next point that CG gives directors power to change their films and classic films. In the right hands a powerful useful tool if used subtly, but in the wrong hands, or the hands of studios, classic films are being destroyed. Take the newest editions of the star wars films, George Lucas went in and added tons of CGI so he could get out his "vision" he claims. When really it were a few cheesy effects that took away from the film. Pointless insertions and additions that were so obviously CG it hurt. To really see the difference between CG and Practical effects, you should watch the remade films. The CG looks completely out of place! It looks ten times work than any of the practical effects you see.

Now another big point I'd like to make with Cgi is that Practical effects create more jobs, in a jobless world. CGI can take the jobs of Tons of assistants and artists and hand it to 2 to 3 computer artists, and eliminate the need for the art. So now is it not only bad for what it is, but it puts all these talented people out of work.
OpinionatedMan

Con

What has been stated in the proposition round 3 debate is a complete false justification for the superiority of practical effects over CGI! I will begin with rebuttals after which I shall move swiftly onto my final constructive of the debate most likely.

Firstly, I shall begin with the point made regarding Twilight not being a horror film. I did not state The Twilight Saga to be a horror-based genre motion picture. What I said was compared to previous movies there is a clear improvement in the detail of the wolves and the realism of the vampires and the transformation into werewolves.

Secondly, although this might not be a rebuttal I would like to point out that you are beginning to justify the Con of the debate since you begin agreeing that sci-fi movies based on CGI are far superior to the practical ones. Indicating the idea that CGI can absolutely replace practical effects in terms of the dominant choice for future film effects.

Thirdly, I would like to point out a flaw in your structure as stated in round one. You proposed the debate as if we were debating on the topic whether or not 'In today's film world, CGI runs rampant.' so I began by explaining it has not run rampant but merely is used when it is more efficient. Then in round three you have decided to alter the topic of debate to 'CG can not stand on its own as well as a practical effect.' which is an entirely separate debate since we are now having to directly compare efficiency alone of CGI versus practical effects whereas you originally propose discussing whether CGI had run rampant. So when you state 'You can not only look at how far CGI has come but how far practical effects have come as well.' the reason I only focused on how far CGI has come is because the original motion was undeniably regarding CGI and it's progress alone.

Finally, the final rebuttal I would like to make is when you state 'Practical effects create more jobs, in a jobless world.' and then go on to say 'CGI can take the jobs of tons of assistants and artists and hand it to 2 to 3 computer artists, and eliminate the need for the art. '. Firstly, I do not know who gave you the slightest idea that we live in a 'jobless world' but this world certainly has an extremely vast job market. Additionally, CGI does not hand it to 2 or 3 computer artists it requires around 200 CGI staff on a film such as Madagascar or at least 60 in a film such as Harry Potter: The Chamber of Secrets where apart from the disputed basilisk being CGI or practical the entire chamber scene almost entirely relied on CGI.

Now for the constructive, the first point I would like to raise is you are very mistaken if you believe CGI can not stand on its own in special effects. The motion picture Avatar has an international gross income of $2,783,918,982 and its budgest was only $237,000,000 with marketing costs of $460,000,000. Meaning that it made a profit of $2,086,918,982. ALmost every single effect of that movie was CGI. I challenge you to find even one practical effects based movie (without any CGI) that can come close. This proves that CGi can stand on its own where practical effects alone do not even come close!

The second point I would like to make is that CGI is not less artistic than practical effects, it is not worse in quality than practical effects it in fact an evolutionary feature of the movie industry that has allowed it to far surpass the quality of previous movies, and this is not just because of increased camera quality. Your points against me are constant referrals to some failed CGI effect on a few horror movies that are not very well known. Yet you can not merely attempt to show where CGi was used poorly to justify that CGI is less efficient than practical effects! CGI, in its intended correct use, is more efficient and more brilliant in terms of enabling the artist to display visually what has been but a recurring dream in their mind for the viewer's of the 21st century to see.

In conclusion, CGI is unquestionably more efficient than practical effects when used to its intended purpose and potential. You cannot justify its inefficiency by describing when it was misused or used in a way that CGi is not intended to be used. Also, you changed the topic of the debate as to whether CGI or practical effects alone can be more efficient and I believe a $2,086,918,982 profit for avatar is sufficient proof that a CGI only film can indeed surpass practical effects.

Sources for Avatar costs:

[This one states the marketing and also the production budget]
http://www.the-numbers.com...

[This one states the Production budget again and the Worldwide Gross in the first box]
http://www.the-numbers.com...

The profit was the worldwide gross minus the combined budget costs.
Debate Round No. 3
lind010

Pro

First off. The fact Avatar made so much money was because of MARKETING, not because it was a good film. In fact the CGI in the film is basically just the effects of video games. Avatar was an computerized mess and the 3D made it even worse. If anything Avatar proves that CG looks far less real than a good practical effect. Being that I myself am a film maker, i can understand why CG is used. And it is mostly used for big budget films, and cutting corners. Its less messy, and requires less material but is a lazy, and still unimaginative way to alter films. I have always stated that is a good tool. BUT NOT STAND ALONE. It can supplement a practical effect well. But cannot exist on its own and become superior. It has its uses, but it can never replace real effects. By you bringing the money that films make after the movie, is pointless. A movie cannot be judged on its income. I see the major difference of this debate is between an Artist and a Businessman.

I continue however. CGI in no way is superior to a practical effect on its own. Another example. The 1980's remake of the Thing made by john carpenter and the 2011 remake. The original thing, is one of the most praised and well done movies with ALL practical effects. The emotions and creepiness of stop motion, puppets and all other effects are much more effective than the CG used in the latest remake. In the original thing you can actually have a physical object so well done you can have it in your room. Touch it, feel it, taste it (if u need to). Its a creation of a true monster. With CGI you can never have that kind of effect. With CG you can always point out what is fake, while with a practical effect, you can never truly be sure.

But here, think about Practical effects and CG in another use. The use of altering a persons appearance simply. The use of make-up can completely transform a persons face, with wigs, highlights and shadows, alterations can be made with silicone prosthetic or foam latex that look so real you could not even tell that the person is wearing any make up at all. With CG this kind of realism can never be replicated. If you were watching a film and saw someones appearance being altered. Perhaps an actor as a character, if they were CG'd you would know right away. CGI is a way to easily get sucked out of a movie. Its always noticeable, while Practical effects keep you in the film. They don't draw attention away from the film and They TRULY are what make movies magic.
OpinionatedMan

Con

Forgive me if I am wrong but I believe you have not stated a single fact in the entire round four proposition.

You say how CGI can never be as realistic as practical effects but this is merely an opinion of your eyes and how you see the movie. Also it is very likely a bias view since you, yourself are a practical effects specialist (forgive me if I'm wrong) and therefore are psychologically altered to see the movie's effects as more fake or artificial once the knowledge that CGI is used comes to your mind.

You say that the original 'Thing' recieve 'a lot' of praise and that the remake did not. Firstly you didnt not state teh figure of what 'a lot' is and you failed to prove that the only factor causing the loss of praise was the use of CGI over practical effects.

Thirdly, you state that avatar was 'fake' and that the only reason it got so much income was due to marketing.

I am not sure what your opinion was based on since you did not quote a professional movie critic but I will now state a series of quotes from very highly regarded movie critics and movie analysing sites on Avatar's realism: -

"If nothing else this is a visual masterpiece and is meant to be seen in IMAX 3-D theaters. It will take you on a ride and blow you away." By Mali Elfman on http://screencrave.com...

"And not only does the 3D work, but the special effects are streets ahead of every movie to have gone before, allowing Cameron to go wild with action sequences that assault the senses." By Rich Phippen on http://movies.sky.com...

"I always hear people talk about the crappy 3D technology for a majority of movies but this did not fail me and everyone was in awe the first 10 minutes of the film. There were “ooohs” and “ahhhs” coming from all around me with a smile on everyone’s faces" By Alex DiGiovanna on http://moviebuzzers.com...

That sums up the general opinion of the film. Also, you never did find a film that matched Avatar's revenue or gros income because you simply assumed avatar had more marketing than many James Bond Films. But it didn't, it was simply superior in its effects.

Additionally I cannot quite understand your justification for CGI not being able to look as realistic as practical effects, it can and perhaps at the beginning it was a bit unrealistic but it can eventually beocme so realistic and programs can be developed to automatically move the effect with the frames of the movie that perhaps CGi could potentially completely replace practical effects.

On the other hand, I see no evidence to suggest the slightest likelihood of practical effects taking over the role of CGi it is almost absurd to think that a new, more efficient method that is continually improving with time will be overturned or can never replace its predecessor. It is like CDs to tapes, like robots to man. It is more efficient and can easily beocme just as flexible with the creativity one can do artisically.
Debate Round No. 4
lind010

Pro

To your comments. and facts. First off, Critic's are not the voice of the people, nor can any one persons opinion really state the overall quality of a movie. But as far as Practical effects being replaced by CGI completely, speaking Mainstream, its quite possible. I think that this entire debate the focus has been on the Blockbusters. Big budget movies, that pay off critics or appeal to a tasteless group of viewers, that honestly cant tell a good film from crap. Secondly surely I may seem bias, and there's no denying that. But I am speaking in behalf of practical make up artists. CGI will never replace Practical effects thankfully for all the millions of independent movies that most likely will never see figures. I do say that you are missing out on an entire ocean of films and media that exists when you speak so generally and incompetently about such a subject you have no involvement in. But through the discussion we talked only In the cases where CGI is most recognizable. Perhaps in its best form. But the variety of movies in the theaters that you have most likely any knowledge of, is but a small portion in the world of film. This is the final blowing statement where you can truly see where CGI effects fail.
THE BEST CGI effects CAN only Look ALMOST as real as a TRUE PHYSICAL practical effect. CGI CANNOT SURPASS what REAL is. Its Impossible. Even make up in the lowest budget movies, can look equally as good or even better than a multimillion dollar digital job. Even CG that looks "so real" can only "look so real" but will never quite be there. Real is better, real takes talent. REAL takes from an artists outside and in. REAL is where the REAL work is done. The fact is, CG can only try and replicate a practical effect as best it can. But simply cannot pass that. Witch in all is why Practical effects are far superior to CGI.
-My final words
Chris
OpinionatedMan

Con

This is a pleasant way to finish off the debate; you state your emotional attachments to practical effects and how a machine should not produce them. Due to your emotional attachments to the physical effects you see CGi as almost a curse. However you are very mistaken.

Simply because an effect is machine generated, as I have attempted to give you an explanation of in the electro music analogy in the round 1 debate, does not make it less effective. If you have a computer generated effect, it could be just as realistic as real-life; the issue is that at present it is not quite to that 'perfect' standard due to the limitations of current software.

The main issue discussed, whether CGI could ever stand alone and overtake physical effects as opposed to only be a brush-up of physical effects, is completely justified by the film Avatar. If we have something as graphically spectacular (As I hav proven to you from quotes of movie critics it is spectacular) today then there could, and will, be more spectacular improvements on the graphics and ability to generate computerised effects.

It is very naive to think that because something is not physically created that it is less artistic; CGI merely open up an era of art that can only be achieved using computers!

And so, as I believe I have disproven all points you have made and I see that your only arguments against CGI are that of failed attempts to use it (herego using it incorrectly) in horror movies I conclude that CGi can, and will, take over physical effects due to a complete lac of limitations to create artistic effects on a computer when compared with physical effects and the brilliant quality as observed in Avatar.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
I think Avatar only succeeded because of the CGI. The plot was sophomoric, but the effect were outstanding. One point that didn't come up in the debate was how important realism is. If realism were really all-important than obviously animated films like Disney movies would never be successful, but they are. All that's necessary is for the effects to be good enough for the viewer to suspend disbelief.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
I would consider accepting this, but five rounds seems like a bit much for this topic.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
lind010OpinionatedManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did better.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
lind010OpinionatedManTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct points go to Con for his statement that he "speaks so generally and incompetently"; moreover, Pro's case was flawed: other than becoming emotionally attached, Pro made a few non-sequiturs, especially about CGI as only supplements to practical effects. A standard for "better" might have helped, but OpinionatedMan's points that CGI extends, rather than constricts, an artists' creativity stands. Pro took up too much time naming specifics (remake of The Thing and so forth) in addition...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lind010OpinionatedManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close debate, I did a 2-3 due to that. Pro had better main points and seemed to have the better case but cons rebuttals where superior. So really close.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
lind010OpinionatedManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is the generality "practical effects are better..." Pro didn't define "better," so it's reasonable to take a broad definition that includes realism, cost, and utility. Pro established, and Conconceded that for close-ups make-p was usually better. But Pro's arguments that it was always better fell flat. How would Avatar or any of dozens of other popular films be made without CGI? Pro did not make a credible case.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
lind010OpinionatedManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: m