Special-effects were not the cause of Avatar's huge success

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for posting the debate challenge. Let's have some fun with this. --------- I would like to submit a new definition of "special effects": "Illusions used in entertainment to simulate the events of a story. Often abbreviated as SFX." [1] I would also like to submit a new definition of "success": "critical acclaim, financial earnings, and positive popular opinion." ---------- I negate the resolution "Special effects were not the cause of Avatar's huge success". ---------- I will now refute my opponent's argument. Since his entire statement revolves around one central point rather than a number of separate arguments, I will only be refuting this one point. His central argument is that Avatar's success is due not to its special effects, but rather its storyline. While my opponent acknowledges that the plot of Avatar is "formulaic and predicable", he claims that these qualities are what grants the film its appeal. However, film critic Duncan Jones criticized the film for its predicable nature ("At what point in the film did you have any doubt what was going to happen next? Or were you ever surprised how it happened?") [2]. Film Editor Cynthia Fuchs of popmatters.com called the film "cardboard" [3] and criticized it for using the very plot structure my opponent claims has "universal appeal" and appeals to the "collective unconscious". NPR also criticized the film for being "totally derivative" and accused it of "ripp[ing] off of every movie in the world but Twilight". [4] Universal means "applicable everywhere or in all cases; general" [5]. The evidence I have provided clearly disproves my opponent's claim that Avatar has "universal" appeal. Avatar won dozens of awards for its visuals. However, it was only nominated for two writing awards, and of those it only won one award. If the film's story were so much more central to its success than its visuals and effects, then it would have won more than 1 award for story and been nominated for more than 2. My opponent's argument is clearly contradicted by this evidence. My opponent claims that Avatar's success was not due to its effects. This is disproven by the fact that it was nominated for dozens of effects-related awards. To summarize: While CON acknowledges that the story of Avatar may have been a part in its success, PRO's claim that its success had nothing to do with its effects is invalid. --------- I would now like to present my argument. ARG1: Avatar won the majority of its awards for its special effects, showing that they are the cause of its success. Source [7] will show viewers that Avatar was nominated for and won most of its awards for cinematography, art direction, and special effects. The fact that such an overwhelming number of award groups praised Avatar almost solely for its effects shows how pivotal the effects were in its success. -------- To summarize the debate thus far: My opponent has made one argument with no clear sources. That argument has been refuted and no longer stands. I have made one argument and cited seven sources for my rebuttal and argument. While CON cannot truly prove that Avatar's success was due to its special effects, it is not the duty of CON to do so, as the burden of proof rests with PRO. CON must only prevent PRO from successfully making its case. -------- I will end by thanking my opponent for this debate and urging viewers to begin considering a CON vote. Thank you for your time. SOURCES: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.slashfilm.com... [3] http://www.popmatters.com... [4] http://www.npr.org... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... Second Definition. [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2009_film) [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...