BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Practical effects are better than CGI

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
Practical effects are better than CGI

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.
Practical effects are better than CGI

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.
Practical effects are better than CGI

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.
Practical effects are better than CGI

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.
Practical effects are better than CGI

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.
Prayer is Supernatural

The Burden of Proof is on my opponent to prove that Prayer is Supernatural. No argument has been presented at this time, so my Round 2 has nothing to refute. From an unbiased perspective, is no reason to suspect that God answers prayer in today's world. Historical prayers are endless. The contain the problem that they are unreproducible. Did God change? Does God not answer prayer like in the bible? I contend that this is the case. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, at 31.5% with Muslims coming in second with 23.2%, both of which pray to the Abrahamic God. However, YHWH and Allah are considered false gods by the opposing religion. This is classical prayer. The refutation for classical prayer is as follows. Muslims pray to Allah to bring victory to their team. The Christians pray to YHWH to bring victory to the opposing team. The most powerful God wins. This is a modernization of a technique approved by the Christian Bible.[2] What if both praying sides are Christian? Does God both win and lose? Hindus perform what is known as meditation, Transcendental Meditation is an offshoot of Hinduism. TM is one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.[3][4][5] Stanford research: TM twice as effective for stress and anxiety [6] [1] https://www.cia.gov... [2] http://www.biblegateway.com... [3] Murphy, M; Donovan, S; Taylor, E (1997). The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A review of Contemporary Research with a Comprehensive Bibliography 1931"1996. Sausalito, California: Institute of Noetic Sciences. [4] Benson, Herbert; Klipper, Miriam Z. (2001). The Relaxation Response. New York, NY: Quill. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-380-81595-1. [5] Sinatra, Stephen T.; Roberts, James C.; Zucker, Martin (December 20, 2007). Reverse Heart Disease Now: Stop Deadly Cardiovascular Plaque Before It's Too Late. Wiley. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-470-22878-4. [6] http://www.tm.org...
Prayer is Supernatural

I wish to take on your debate, and I hope you accept. Though, it's my first debate. It says that you want me to prove to you that prayer is superior to meditation. I take this as in any sense of the word superior, meaning psychologically and the like. To set some definitions in my perspective of the words: Prayer: An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Meditation: continued or extended thought; contemplation. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I look forward to this debate, friend. May the best person win.
Fathers are as capable as mothers of taking care of children.

I really appreciate your arguments, nevertheless as I see the main topic claims that "Fathers are as capable as mothers of taking care of children" and I personally think there is no need to compare who is better or worse than the other one. So, according to the recent research presently fathers are more interested in their children lives, they are willing to spend more time with them. Thus, most fathers are doing their jobs better than they used to, while contrastly mothers are doing worse than they used to.(according to the resent research) To be honest, both sides have the same rights and experience, actually men can also do whatever women do, like cook, clean, do housework and so on. Anyway there are plenty usefull sites which can help them to do at their best. Besides three out of four dads share childcare equally with their partners (ING Direct 2007). In addition, fathers to be able to ubringing really good children they have to be comprehensive enough. sources: http://homedad.org.uk... http://pewresearch.org...
Fathers are as capable as mothers of taking care of children.

Yes, I agree that a father can raise a child and so can a mother (in fact neither have to do it as you suggested since there are single fathers as well as single mothers). However firstly you stated 'children' not just 'their child' and also you stated 'as capable as' which, according to my definitions, means you are claiming that fathers have power and ability to oversee and protect children to the same degree, amount, or extent. Well, I'd say they are not able to the same degree but in fact MORE capable to protect their child than mothers since on average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass.[1] However, to be more capable is not the same as to be AS capable. It is not to the SAME degree but to a GREATER degree. On the other hand, my definition of 'taking care of' does not only refer to protecting but also refers to 'overseeing' and this is where mothers far surpass fathers. The definition of overseeing is 'Supervise (a person or work), esp. in an official capacity.'[2] To run up and down a house, cook, clean, feed the child, check on the child's health, bathe the child, be on the phone with your partner if they need somethign from the shops requires a huge capability to SWITCH BETWEEN parts of the brain RAPIDLY, more commonly termed multi-tasking. Neurologist Robert Gorski at the University of California confirmed that the corpus callosum (the nerve connections between the right and left hemispheres of the brain) is 30% more highly developed in the female brain than the male brain. These nerve connections allow information to flow more easily from one side of the brain to the other, which allows a woman to focus on more than one thing at a time.[3] So in the protection, fathers outdo mothers and in overseeing mothers outdo men. It's just variation between genders. You can't change biology. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.google.co.uk... [3] http://www.techrepublic.com...
Fathers are as capable as mothers of taking care of children.

Thank you very much for explaning what the words mean.So to begin with,I should accept that mothers also plays an important role in a child life, they give a birth, babies gain benefit from breast feeding by their mothers. However, as far as I'm concerned I do not think that fathers are useless in this direction. Nowadays job markets are too competetive with each other, therefore they need more educated people, as we know both women and men are well educated and women do not want to loose their job because of the housework and childrens' upbreeding, while their husbands might be free and can take care of their son. In our modern life, breeding children is very easy, and every convenience have been done for fathers, they can entirely enjoy usefull information from mass media. On the other hand, there are many housedads who take care of babies and special sites also created for them. There are some comments of homedads: "My wife and I were both earning about the same, but whereas she really enjoys her work, I felt I could take it or leave it. So I did, and it's been the best career move I've ever made. No pressure and no deadlines. Admittedly there's no coffee breaks either, but the job satisfaction is absolute." added Simon. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...
Fathers are as capable as mothers of taking care of children.

I shall state definitions since you did not. I then wish to see you propose your case.Definitions: -Father:A male parent or a woman having the status, function, or authority of a male parent.[1]Mother: A female parent or a woman having the status, function, or authority of a female parent.[2]As: To the same degree, amount, or extent.[3]Capable: Having power and ability.[4]Taking Care of: To oversee and protect someone or something.[5]Children: Plural of a baby or infant.[6]Sources:[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...[6]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Monkeys Need To Learn Math Before They Throw What They Shat

As far as I know, not with the usage you have in mind (throwing poo), but it makes you appreciate what goes into actions we assume to be simple. This knowledge has plenty of other practical applications like teaching a robot how to go about it, controlling a NASA probe or aiming more advanced projectile weapons (cannons, missiles etc). Trigonometry is also used in construction and other fields. PS: Nice disarming spell. I can practically hear 'Expelliarmus'.