A Chainsaw is the worst weapon to use in a zombie apocalypse.
Debate Rounds (4)
The rules are as follows: If you choose a ranged weapon, it is implied you have ammunition/fuel for it. If it's a power tool, I will argue both sides (It being turned off, and it being turned on)
No lawyering, trolling, or semantics.
The weapon MUST be a logical choice, either in a panic (Quickly grabbing something), or a tool that is clearly able to kill. For example, no one would take a small marble as a weapon LOGICALLY, especially given the range of choices above that.
I thank any potential opponent in advance, and hope to have an enjoyable debate!
I will not present arguments here; however, I will announce what my true "worst weapon" and my comical "worst weapon" will be.
1) It is hard to find the right weapon for this. Of course, by trying to pick the worst, I want to be unreasonably stupid. But of course, I need to be logical (though my comical will not be logical at all, which is why it should not be considered with voting), so I've decided to take the consideration of a zombie breaking into my place right now while I'm sitting here typing this ou...AAAHHHH!!!.... Ummfdhgf....bbbrraaaaaaaiiiiinnnsssss....
Anyway, a zombie breaking in and I look around to see what I can defend myself with. I look around to see what I can defend myself with, knowing that I only have seconds to make up my mind. Not seeing anything right off the bat, I naturally turn to my defense of choice had this been a home invader. My Kershaw 1920 Select Fire . This is reasonable because it is what I would use for defense against a person and in such a case as a zombie break in, it is reasonable to think I acted on autopilot.
2) For this one, I will assume two things. First, that the zombies attacked my neighbors first and I heard it, so I had some time to process what was going on and get ready. Second, that I was drunk off my arse at the time.
Hearing the screams in the other room and knowing instantly, "must be a zombie attack," with no questions asked, and of course not helping her (she never picks up her dog poop, bitch deserves it). Knowing I have a few minutes, I quickly craft one of these  and grab one of my three of these  and prepare for the awesome glory that will undoubtedly follow.
 see video
The definition of a chainsaw, as provided by Merriam-Webster : a portable power saw that has teeth linked together to form an endless chain
1. The Chainsaw is not designed for human flesh, it is designed for chopping down trees. I feel I don't need to provide proof for this, as it's common knowledge. Unlike a tree, a human (Or a zombie), has sinewy muscles, intricate threading of veins, bones, taking in to account that the blades are jagged, this would, despite the running speed of the blades, make it more likely to get caught within a zombie as you slowly saw through it.
1a. Even if you were to, say, sharpen the jagged blades, they are small, and again, using a chainsaw against a person or zombie is more than likely going to cause severe damage to the tool. Trees are hard, and usually dry. The human body is not.
2. A chainsaw is a slow-to-operate weapon. Lifting a chainsaw and slowly dropping it down is undesirable for any scenario. As a weapon, it can be used for either thrusting or slicing, but doing either of these will require some serious patience. Again, I bring up my first point, this isn't made for use against humanoids. So, contrary to what video games or movies may depict, this would take serious, valuable life-or-death time.
3. Let's take the typical walking zombie. The universal method in which a zombie changes a person is via their bodily fluids getting in your system. By biting you, a zombie is transmitting the virus, from their blood, to yours. This weapon definitely wouldn't create a clean kill. Considering the sawdust that flies about from this tool's proper use, it's easy to say that blood would be flying from the high acceleration from the blades.
4. The potential dangers of using a chainsaw as a weapon are quite high. A typical logging operation allows for proper stance, but in the scenario of a zombie apocalypse, to ensure a kill, one would have to lift and swing a running chainsaw. There is the potential to cut or jab yourself on the teeth during a wind-up. Also taking in to account the potential ear damage, one would either have to sacrifice most of their hearing ability by getting proper protective gear, as is recommended when purchasing (Or, in this case, finding) a chainsaw. 
5. The noise. Most chainsaws are gas-operated, one of these being on and active results in a loud running noise, that is constant, until the chainsaw is off. Zombies operate on hearing, so a chainsaw would be a dinner bell, so to speak, a loud beacon that lets them know where a human or group of humans are at. Unlike a firearm, this noise is constant, you cannot "tap-fire" a chainsaw, it is either active, and ready to be used as a weapon, or it is not.
6. Its design is not made for this scenario. This is always a two-handed weapon. there is little versatility in regards to stance, or usage. You are stuck either swinging, or thrusting. Unlike, say, an axe. With an axe, you are able to thrust with either end, chop, use the entire handle to push or protect, with ease. This simply isn't the case with the chainsaw. The average chainsaw is about 10.6 pounds, not including the chain and rod. (Unfortunately, I cannot find the source in which I read this, again.)
7. Even if one were to get a kill with a chainsaw, there would be all sorts of things now caught in the already short teeth, in an urgent situation, one kill would be all a person could get.
Now, on to the scenarios I have set in the rules.
Against a single zombie, a chainsaw is just too much trouble, and no benefit. If there were a zombie in the way, and he wasn't yet alerted to my presence, I would have to rev up the chainsaw multiple times, the roar of the engine alone would catch the zombie's attention, who would then begin walking towards me. I have already created a radius of sound for myself, and I have potentially just attracted every zombie in the area.
A zombie is not killed unless connection to the brain is destroyed. This could be by destroying the brain itself, or chopping off the head. So, I would have to either raise the chainsaw neck-level, and attempt to accurately swing it in just the right time spacing, or, I would resort to sawing through his entire torso. If the chainsaw stalls, I am now unarmed. Again, I bring up that the chainsaw is not designed with our muscles, flesh, and bones in mind. And, with the chainsaw caught, I am now susceptible to a bite.
Assuming I got the kill, there would be the threat of the horde.
I have already established that use against a single target is dangerous, inefficient, and foolish. Against even more zombies, I would be leaving myself entirely exposed as I saw through one zombie, slowly, and inefficiently. Assuming I got one kill, blade maintenance would instantly be required, as I stated in point seven. I would have a useless weapon in my hands after that, and all the space a zombie would need, would already be closed.
 http://zombie.wikia.com... (See 'Sound' section)
 http://waynet.hubpages.com... (Among this, even a quick Google search or look in to most zombie lore will provide you with the same answer.)
1) The Chainsaw of beheading!!!
My opponent suggests that because chainsaws are not designed for human bodies and that the soft tissue will "more than likely going to cause severe damage to the tool." Now, thanks to the drug war in Mexico, there are videos online of using this particular tool to decapitate someone. However, I have decided not to post any link to that. Instead it is easy to show what happens when chainsaws meat flesh by seeing the damage to limbs. Amputations are not a rarity when it comes chainsaw accidents. In fact, chainsaws cause wounds so horrible, the average wound takes over 100 stitches (when stitches are even an option), and that's not extreme cases, that's the average .
While the chainsaw is heavy and bulky to use, we are talking about slow moving, stumbling zombies that don't know how to get out of the way. The speed of the weapon becomes little consequence. The main advantage is the range. The blade of the saw allow it to cause damage to a good distance, much better than a pocket knife.
Another thing to consider is that through all the movies, with all the fires, chainsaws, shotguns blowing bits everywhere, no one gets infected from inhaling the blood in the air, not having it fall on any of their cuts. This implies that the virus has no airborne life span. It must be direct injection.
2) The pocketknife of Damn-I-have-to-be-close-to-use-this!
This knife has an amazing blade of 3 3/8" made of the finest mid-quality china steel. Now, the steel on this knife is not strong enough to cut through bone, so the severing of the spinal cord must be done by prying the blade between the vertebrae to severe the cord. In order to do this, you must be right up to the zombie and reach behind him to the back of his neck. This places his mouth right up to you to spread his disease.
Of course, an imperfect strike can cause the knife to hit bone, causing a high risk of chipping. Now, zombies have decaying bodies, so it is safe to say that their bodies are going to be softer and weaker than outs, but the knife can easily chip on wood, while a chainsaw, not so much. If it chips on wood, it is defective (and we are assuming both weapons are in standard operating condition).
3) Cat on a stick and Tug Toner of WTF?!
While the cat on a stick would claw the crap out of the zombie, it would not be able to defeat the zombie on its own. So you'd quickly end up with a zombie-cat on a stick, and they are too slow for their scratching to do a lot. Now left with the tug toner, all you can really do is pretend to masturbate while dying. I'm also fairly sure that no matter what kind of person you are and what religious views you have, dying in this manner will send you straight to Limbo (not even hell would accept that death).
I'd like to note to all judges that there was really only one rebuttal. My opponent did not take noise, the actual time it would take to cut through either the neck or the torso, and the effect of using this heavy weapon for long periods of time, only one of my points was truly addressed, though I do accept that my opponent may not have had time to draft a full reply.
I will now make rebuttals to my opponent's brief analysis of the Kershaw Select Fire, and attempt to explain why the chainsaw is worse.
1. "This knife has an amazing blade of 3 3/8" made of the finest mid-quality china steel. Now, the steel on this knife is not strong enough to cut through bone"
While this may seem to be the case, do remember what my opponent put out there, that zombies are rotting corpses, and, as a result, most of their bodies are more brittle, or softer. This is simple fact, walking corpses wont keep their human condition. Against a zombie, either of the eyes, the top of, the back of, or, if you rammed very hard, the front of the tool could go in and get a kill. The blade would make the opening wound, from there, some of the handle could get in as well. You don't have to sever the spinal cord if you wind up ripping up most of the brain in a well placed stab. I would, personally, prefer those odds over the odds of revving up and slowly swinging a large chainsaw, which, you have failed to prove wouldn't move slowly through a human torso. Limbs are moot point, zombies can live without. And a neck slice is already incredibly difficult to do. Zombies, while slow, are still moving targets. I doubt this video features a moving target.
2. "Of course, an imperfect strike can cause the knife to hit bone, causing a high risk of chipping."
This is true, but, again, the zombies vary in rotting. So, I'd, again, rather take a sure-fire or almost sure-fire strike to the top of the head, back of the head, or eyeballs with an 8" overall tool. These are all preferable, again, in my opinion, and also, in almost every single circumstance in which you encounter zombies.
Now, that's basically all I have to go off of for my opponent's analysis of the Kershaw, I am unconvinced that it is worse than a chainsaw. While both weapons have many, many negative traits, the Kershaw is simply better. Even if it's not a /good/ weapon, I would take that over a loud, roaring chainsaw that cuts slowly, and attracts every zombie within a pretty good radius. I will admit both weapons are equally awful in a horde, but, at least one would have a better chance with the Kershaw.
My opponent mentioned the following about the chainsaw. "The main advantage is the range. The blade of the saw allow it to cause damage to a good distance, much better than a pocket knife."
My opponent must keep in mind that one would have to move rather close to get the right spot of the blades to begin sawing through. This makes the actual range of the chainsaw moot point, you're still getting in the "Personal" distance, and, while you're busy attempting to run that chainsaw through, that zombie, that does not feel pain, is able to lean in and bite you. Or, if he has friends around, they can do you in, too.
There's one more thing my opponent brought up. Without getting to the point of semantics, I must point out one error in my opponent's analysis.
"Another thing to consider is that through all the movies, with all the fires, chainsaws, shotguns blowing bits everywhere, no one gets infected from inhaling the blood in the air, not having it fall on any of their cuts. This implies that the virus has no airborne life span. It must be direct injection."
My opponent uses movies as a defense for the blood spewing everywhere issue. But I must ask my opponent to now prove, via a clip, where it shows a zombie's blood getting in a laceration or other wound. This is still direct injection, their blood is mixing with your blood via an open cut, this blood, and thus, the virus, will get in one's body, causing infection, and the standard symptoms of zombification.
I thank my opponent for continuing the debate, I was worried for a moment, there.
I will go through the arguments backwards, starting with the chainsaw, then the pocket knife.
My opponent brings up several points. Speed, range, angle of attack, noise, and blood. I will address each of these.
Speed, [1, first video]. This video shows a small chainsaw, go through an 8 inch diameter tree trunk in 1 second. Going through a 2 inch rotting vertebra is not going to take so long you need to park in the long term carport. This also makes common sense, since the number of accidental amputations are not from a really slow cut, it is from something that happens in a moment.
Range, chainsaw blade lengths can greatly vary, here is a 32"  and here is a 20" . With your elbow planted into your stomach for support, you can easily have a range of 50", far more than the knife and well outside the range of a zombie's mouth.
Angle of attack. The defense style is obvious, you can simply keep the tip pointed that the gut of the zombie. Zombies are not fast enough to dart around and attack, so you just let them walk into it. If you miss the spin as it goes in, you only have to move a few inches left or right. That severs the spinal cord and kills the zombie at a safe distance. The same cannot be said for the knife, which requires you get into an unsafe proximity. This fulfills the you vs 1 zombie for the chainsaw. My opponent also mentions that cutting limbs is not important. I would disagree. Cutting limbs will not "kill" the zombie, but it will disable it. Allowing you to either walk away, or kill it at your leisure.
Noise. This one we can work several ways. Some might consider this as semantics, if so, please ignore (though I recommend to my opponent to not simply dismiss this and assume/hope voters call it semantics). Against a horde, one must realize that the only victory is escape. You cannot defeat the entire un-ending horde with any weapon, and whether you kill 2 or 20 zombies, if you die, then you die and it doesn't matter how many you took down. Against a horde, you can turn on the chainsaw and leave it somewhere. Let its noise attract all the zombies while you quietly escape. The alternative is that against the horde, one should assume that the zombies already know where you are. Otherwise, both weapons are equal in that you don't use them and sit quietly until the horde either moves on, or finds you. If we assume that the horde already is attacking you, then noise does not matter, and the defense posture pointed out against the single zombie will be more effective against the zombie, because once the cord is severed, you don't have to pull out, only swing sideways to face the next zombie (who is likely coming from another direction, not just next in line), you only have to cut through decaying flesh, not more bones.
That brings us to the blood. My opponent is saying that I need to prove a negative, that something has never happened. This is, of course, an impossible request. My opponent also seems to misunderstand a "direct injection." It is entirely possible that the virus dies in the air. Just like HIV dies in only minutes when exposed to the environment. Despite there being no cases of anyone contracting the virus in this method, my opponents tries to place the burden on me.
My opponent has argued that you could stab through the eye sockets to reach the brain. This has two problems. First, in order to do so, you must be within arm's reach of the zombie, and place your hand VERY close their mouth. Second, my opponent applied a double standard. They think that it is too hard to hit a moving zombie in the spinal cord, but that it will be no problem to jab them in a 2 inch hole in a moving head.
My opponent is also assuming the degree for which the bones decay. While they do get weaker, there is no sign that they will be weak enough that the knife can punch through bone. The steel used has higher carbon and lower chrome than most stainless steels, and so the metal is more brittle .
My opponent does not seem to consider how a knife would work in a horde setting. If you have to get within arm's reach to kill the very first zombie, you cannot get very far into killing the second before you are overrun.
All in all, the chainsaw is better against the single (you can kill it from outside of arm's length) and better against the horde (whether you use it as a decoy or for defense). Let us now move into the closing arguments.
 first video
1: I know I wasn't too specific when I gave various methods to kill a zombie with a knife. But, my opponent must consider that in choosing a one handed weapon, there is more mobility, and the ever-important free second hand. While you're bringing yourself closer to danger, it goes without saying that you would have more control in that situation, than with a chainsaw.
1.a: With mobility, you could easily get around a zombie. It's not like they can turn on a heel, But with a chainsaw, my mobility is decreased. It would be much more difficult to move with a 10.6+ pound item in comparison to one that a toddler could tote.
2: The tip, with enough force (Depending on how you hold a knife), the tip of the blade, when you slam it down on the top of a zombie skull, would definitely be able to cause enough pressure and force to get through the skull. If you got to the back of a zombie, you could use the aforementioned free hand to get a more stable angle. Yes, it's dangerous, but more reliable than a chainsaw.
3: The Kershaw's weight allows for easier strikes to the head. As I mentioned before, with the chainsaw, you must heft it and drive it through the zombie, with the neck being the most preferable area. This would be fatiguing, and simply not easy.
4: The Kershaw isn't making constant noise. You could still get the element of surprise, scenario permitting. But against a horde, this point is irrelevant.
5. It's easier to retrieve once you've driven it in a zombie. The Kershaw isn't serrated, or jagged. It's a smooth blade. With enough force, assuming the zombies are rotten enough, one could get multiple kills before going down, as improbable as this may seem, it's a better chance.
Now, I will finally just refute or attempt to refute some of the things my opponent has said.
I must remind all voters that the goal was to provide a weapon /for use against a single zombie and a horde/. My opponent attempts to make the chainsaw double as an escape tool/diversion. This wasn't the goal of the debate, and it is a rather cheap tactic to make it seem a lot more useful as a weapon, and swing the argument over to their side. The goal isn't to discuss survival tactics. So I must ask that all voters take this in to consideration.
"Speed, [1, first video]. This video shows a small chainsaw, go through an 8 inch diameter tree trunk in 1 second. Going through a 2 inch rotting vertebra is not going to take so long you need to park in the long term carport. "
Do keep in mind, that if one has to go through the body of a zombie, there are organs, muscles, and bones in the way of that. One would have get through this sinewy muscle to get to the vertabrae, which isn't the issue I was bringing up to begin with. If you get a neck shot, that would probably be your only one, again, the chainsaw, as a weapon, is cumbersome and fatiguing.
The video that my opponent provided is moot point. They show what the tool was made for, not what it was NOT made for.
"Angle of attack. The defense style is obvious, you can simply keep the tip pointed that the gut of the zombie. Zombies are not fast enough to dart around and attack, so you just let them walk into it."
And the zombie, not feeling pain, would continue to walk in to it up to the spinal cord's severing. Against a single one, sure, might not seem like that big of a deal. But recovering the blade in a horde would be nigh impossible, and a forceful yank could throw one off balance. I still believe the Kershaw is more desirable in either circumstance. You can drive the blade in, and cleanly remove it.
"Cutting limbs will not "kill" the zombie, but it will disable it. Allowing you to either walk away, or kill it at your leisure."
It may seem that way, but removing a zombie's legs will not stop it. And to say that it is beneficial to take all that time to saw through both arms and legs, is ridiculous. One would have to saw the arm off, and, assuming the zombie isn't feasting on them, they would have to crouch down slightly, throw their posture off, and saw through the leg at a good angle. Zombies will not stop while you're in the process of doing any of these. And if you just get rid of their legs, they are still a threat, they will crawl.
"It is entirely possible that the virus dies in the air. Just like HIV dies in only minutes when exposed to the environment."
Assuming the virus is like HIV in this sense, while you are sawing through a zombie, and blood is spewing everywhere, it is not taking a few minutes to reach your body. If there were any open scrapes on you, it would only take a few seconds to get in and integrate itself. Now, even if the virus died upon open contact with air, that's now a viscous liquid that can get in your eyes, ears (Assuming you aren't wearing protection), mouth, and nose. It would simply put a damper on your senses.
In conclusion, my opponent brings up some good points, and, while there isn't a doubt that the Kershaw Select Fire is indeed a bad weapon, my opponent has failed to really make it seem worse than the chainsaw. That was the goal all along, Yes, you have to be close to use it, but one could easily put power in to their strikes. As I mentioned before, the pressure that would be focused on the blade's tip, coupled with the fact that it has a short range, would provide enough pressure to get clean kills after clean kills with correct usage (To the top, back, or front, with the correct angle).
With the freedom and mobility that one would have in comparison to a chainsaw, fatigue would come a lot slower. The wielder could have maneuverability on his or her side. And with that free hand, they could, albeit dangerously, anchor their target, or at least attempt to shift their weight as they see fit.
The chainsaw is overly bulky, not practical in any weaponized sense, and has the most danger of malfunction (Again, without my opponent posting this supposed video of it being used against a person, it cannot be sufficiently used as proof). It would take too long to saw through an entire body, and one would have to risk their posture/stance to go for the legs. Neck shots would be rare, as carrying a 10 pound item around, constantly, is bound to fatigue one. They'd have to resort to going through every organ, muscle, and vein from one side to the other.
And of course, the constant noise while weaponized/ready to use means that you're attracting zombies from EVERY angle. Taking out that lone walker is now going to cause a circle of zombies to converge on you. This sound would be traceable since it is constant, and not a tap at a time like you can do with, say, firearms.
And, unlike the Kershaw, the Chainsaw is something that can run out, that can stop working on virtue of running on gasoline. This makes it a boisterous melee weapon that you have to fuel.
Range is the only real advantage the Chainsaw claims, which is true, until it enters the body, then, as a weapon, it just comes toppling down with disadvantage after disadvantage that simply makes the Kershaw better.
I thank my opponent for my first welcoming debate, it was a good one.
I will not make any more arguments, but simply correct a misunderstanding by my opponent. I will then provide a summary of the arguments.
"But recovering the blade in a horde would be nigh impossible, and a forceful yank could throw one off balance."
It was said that to remove, you go sideways, not straight out. After the cord is severed, you go sideways to face the next zombie that is not likely coming straight behind the previous.
In summary. My opponent states that a 10+ lb item (a little more that a gallon of milk) is going to slow you down, but never provides any logically reasoning for why this would cause any kind of significant loss of speed or agility that would actually effect the outcome of any battle.
They also have stated that the knife will go through bone, but have not provided any evidence that the knife would not break in the process. My opponent has also claimed that the virus can infect you through splattering blood while never offering any evidence for this ever happening in zombie historic documents (movies) despite many of them using chainsaws and other weapons that splatter blood and fluids.
My opponent then argues that without me posting the video of beheading, we must conclude that the chainsaw is likely to malfunction. However, despite not posting the video, I did post statistics on the injuries and amputations caused by chainsaw accidents, which clearly show that it can go through flesh.
All in all, we can see that chainsaws are heavier, but not in any significant way (remember, only 10+ lbs as my opponent said). They have a greater range than the knife (my opponent agreed in the last round). They have shown to be able to actually cut through bone, while the knife is speculation based on a theoretical decomposition of the bone.
We can then go back and compare these against the single and the horde to see which weapon is truly the worse weapon.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Ore_Ele. A knife that can't go through bone is useless against zombies without a high level of precision. Chainsaws simply destroy. The lost agility doesn't seem to matter in either case.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Although the debate was close, i think that Ducky was more convincing. The points about the difficulty of using the chainsaw, especially when fighting more than one zombie, made it seem useless, equal to the knife. However, when fighting one zombie, it was actually counter-intuitive and worse to use than nothing at all. For this reason, I vote PRO.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.