Practical effects are better than CGI

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.