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

George Carlin was truly a genius and he is missed. ------ Now I will respond to his rebuttal. What I meant to do by citing those reviews is show that Avatar's story does not possess the universal appeal PRO claims it has. As to the awards for its visuals, those were meant to disprove the claim that its special effects were not the cause of its success. CON does not necessarily hold the belief that Avatar's story is not good, but CON's beliefs are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the sources CON has provided show that PRO's claim of Avatar's story's universal appeal is invalid. In his rebuttal, my opponent contradicts his own resolution. His resolution is that Avatar's special effects are not the cause of its success (Cause - the producer of an effect. [8]). However, he admits that the special effects may have "had a part in the overall success of the movie". Here, my opponent admits that his own resolution may be invalid. The resolution states that Avatar's effects were not the cause of its success. This resolution is absolute in nature, stating that Avatar's effects had nothing to do with its success. My opponent's arguments are very well suited to the resolution "Special Effects were not the sole cause of Avatar's success" or "the main cause of its success". However, my opponent's resolution states clearly that Avatar's special effects were not the cause of its success, meaning they were not the producer of the effect. In conclusion, my opponent has admitted the fact that his resolution may be inaccurate. As to the "John Williams" argument, CON need not prove that Avatar's special effects are the sole reason for its success. Thus, this point is irrelevant. Also, back when the old Star Wars movies were released, their success was largely due to their effects. The effects were not the sole reason for their success, but it played a large part in the production of the effect, or the cause. The same can be said of Avatar. As to the modern Star Wars movies, the effects used in those were not groundbreaking advances in CGI. The success of the original Star Wars was due to the fact that nothing like this had ever been seen before. Roger Ebert's statement in [9] supports this claim. Also, Avatar's special effects were anything but "superficial". Many critics cited them as the best feature of the film, or at least one of the better features. This claim has already been proven by sources given in R1 by CON. ---------- Now I will weigh the debate. CONVINCING ARGUMENTS: CON has refuted all of PRO's statements and provided one argument which still stands, as it was defended from refutation. PRO has not clearly outlined any arguments. Thus, I urge a CON vote for Convincing Arguments. CONDUCT: Both sides have shown very good conduct; as a result, I recommend casting a "Tie" vote for Conduct. SPELLING/GRAMMAR: While CON's grammar and spelling have been strong throughout the debate, PRO has made a number of grammatical and spelling errors throughout the debate, including misspelling "worshippers" in R1, misusing "it's" in R2, and using inaccurate punctuation in R2. Thus, I recommend a CON vote for Spelling/Grammar RELIABLE SOURCES: While CON has provided 9 sources throughout the debate, PRO has provided only one and even stated a lack of desire to research their case. Thus, I urge a CON vote for Reliable Sources. I would like to thank mebjornson for a fun debate and the viewers for their time. Please vote CON. [8] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [9]. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2009_film) #Critical_reception