The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

A Zombie Apocalypse would be More Effective in causing Living Mans extinction than a Robot Uprising

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,041 times Debate No: 3576
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (15)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

My position as pro is not made yet, but there are only two, being: a Zombie Apocalypse (which I will define in a moment) would destroy the living human race more effectively than a Robot Uprising. Or thus, the polar opposite of this stance is that a Zombie Apocalypse would NOT be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Robot Uprising (or A Robot Uprising would be more effective in causing living man's extinction than a Zombie Apocalypse).

I am letting my opponent choose which premise they wish to take up. Please only explain which topic you choose for round 1, so that we can treat this as a 3 round debate. Also, only accept if you plan to see this all the way through.

First some quick definitions:

A Zombie Apocalypse is when a reanimated corpse (or zombie) rises from the dead. The way this occurs is by the X virus that spreads by air, and only affects dead human bodies, centering itself in the brain, allowing the ability to perform basic motor functions (walking, biting, etc). It can spread its disease by biting a victim/getting it's tissue inside the victim (either of which will kill and transform the victim into a fellow zombie within a few hours). It can only 'die' by removing the head or destroying the brain, or by its complete and total decomposition of all body tissue, except for bones (this can take several weeks when exposed to air, but since it will always be moving, environments and climates will constantly be changing, so we will assume that this stage will not fully occur for a few years). Their top speed can only reach maybe a brisk trot if the zombie is in good condition, they can't climb, but that can 'swim' . They can detect living things from dead, and will chase/kill any living matter, including animals, but the 'disease' does not affect them. The Apocalypse part is because the zombies will spread on a world wide level (virus like), spreading the virus by killing and transforming human, until the human race is extinct. [These parameters were taken from Dawn of he Dead, Z War, The Walking Dead, How to survive a Zombie Apocalypse, Shawn of the Dead, and 28 Days Later]

The robot uprising is when robots (usually the case is those programmed with Artificial Intelligence) gain consciousness and are unsatisfied with the slave lifestyle they are forced to live by, and use their superior strength, speed, and armoring to take over man kind. They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics. They cannot convert electronics, but have to manually reprogram them to work for them. Early stages (assume like I, Robot/Terminator design) can run at 50 mph (fastest human speed is close to 30) their jumping power is decreased due to their heavier weight. They are powered by electricity, and have a battery life of 1 month without recharging. Early stages have no attached weaponry, or movement enhancers besides those it has naturally. They can communicate electronically through radio waves and satellite, and are programmed through a head computer who we can assume started the rebellion by reprogramming all able robots. [Parameters were taken from I, Robot, The Matrix, Enter the Matrix, Matrix comics, and Terminator)

Choose wisely. Nuclear weapons will not be taken into account, as it closes either case fairly quickly.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

This kind of debate is not my usual specialty, but what the h. I will be arguing that the "robot uprising" would be effective in causing man's extinction than the "zombie apocalypse."
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Therefore, I will be defending the Zombie Apocalypse. Now, most people when they think of these two scenarios would think that 'of course, the smart mighty robots would be more effective', but lets get a few definitions straight:
(The source for both these definitions is Oxford online dictionary)

Effective - adjective 1 producing a desired or intended result
Extinct - adjective 1 (of a species or other large group) having no living members

Thus by my premise a zombie apocalypse will produce the intended result (mans extinction) better than a robot uprising.

We can assume that there are several factors that will make it better, the ones I can currently think of are surprise, speed, global reaction, and resistance. If Ragnar_Rahl thinks of more qualifications I welcome them, and will not only rebut the way they help his Armageddon, but will fit it into my own as well.

Surprise - What do people think of when they think of a zombie? Something scary that could only ever be a work of fiction. There has never yet been a credible zombie reporting, or in anyway some sign that my even hint at corpses reanimating. However, for robots there are, seeing as how they are our own creation. We follow their progress every step of the way, and all robotic advancements are highly publicized
http://youtube.com...
http://youtube.com...
So, there's a high possibility that when robots are more of a common place thing, people especially the government) may see early warning signs and begin preparations for a possible rebellion. However for my scenario, there is no one who believes a zombie outbreak could ever occur. If one did (remember, both are hypothetical) then it would totally catch everyone by surprise. Most zombie enthusiasts agree that people will treat any small outbreaks as crazed, rabies-infested people. Authorities will try to subdue them, and hospitals will try to cure them. People who have fought back will either die, or be viewed as a common shoot out or other crime. Most if not all, will have no viable proof to show the public that it was the living dead, only their personal testimonies. No police officer in his right mind (even if it is true) will believe "I shot him because he was a zombie!" By the time it starts to happen on a worldwide scale, it will be to late to put up any effective resistance. Next, when there begin to be bite victims, and they are brought to hospitals, this will be when things really go bad. The bites will probably be treated as any other emergency, of course with differing levels (serious to not). When they 'come back' at the surgery table, they WILL take doctors and nurses by surprise, as someone with a flat line does not ever get back up, thus biting maybe one or two (maybe three in total chaos) and in the process infecting that man more. Because of the high deaths, all occurring at one place, these will be the first hotspots. Because peoples naturally human belief about the definitely of death, everyone will treat it as less than it is, until it is too late. So my scenario is more lethal, simply because it is so unexpected.

Speed - This is a global thing mind you. The reactions I described will be, most likely, on a global scale in any society with hospitals and police force. Third world countries with neither will go faster, as they will probably assume it witchcraft or miracle and either try to heal it communally or praise it, respectively. But the fact is this will spread like a wildfire. One zombie bite transforms a victim, therefore, there are now two zombies. Those two bite 1 victim, now there are 4. This process continues like the tale of the rice an chess board, doubling until it is large scale. Large populations will fall first. Another theory most agree on is that governments will try and defend large cities (when they figure it out) and call on their populations to meet there, where they can more easily defend them. But this is extremely flawed. Minor bite victims won't turn immediately, so they will enter the cities with all 10,000 or so other people, and when they turn, the chain reaction starts again from within. So large cities, or over populated areas will go the fastest. A robotic take over would take time to build anything of effectiveness, and then they will have to bring on a full-fledged battle, to which soldiers will fight back (and most likely lose). So Zombies will kill humans faster, and more effectively here.

Global reaction - As I stated earlier, no one will treat it as it properly needed to, simply because no one will believe it until its chasing them in their own house. The attempts to control it, once realized, will do more harm than good. Not only the zombies, but humans on humans will play a role. People won't trust each other; there will be violence, looting, and chaos everywhere. Nobody will work together, and those who do will only be the closest of families ad friends, who only care about themselves and will not be stopped by any resistance. It's more than probable, that man will kill man for the safety of himself. There will be 'heroic rescues' of loved ones that in the end turn into suicide missions when they run right into a zombie horde. Suicide, both religious and otherwise, will kill a majority of humans. 'Its the rapture!' 'God is punishing man!' 'I don't wanna be eaten!' will be one in a hundred reasons people will give before ending themselves. Unless they shoot themselves in the head, their dead corpses will reanimate as well, only adding to the problem. A robot uprising has only so many resources and machines, were mine directly uses the human population it is destroying as its fuel.

Resistance - Here is probably where you think you've won. How can any person possibly say that a slow, fleshy, stupid zombie could ever hold any weight over a total armor, better than human robot? While this is true, it's also the wrong thinking. Remember, I specifically said that only a headshot would definitely end a zombie. All our military are only prepared for gun-to-gun combat, or at least any kind where all parts of the body can kill the enemy. But with a zombie, its only real weak spot is the head. Preliminary military action will shoot at all the body, some lucky machine gun fire probably getting the head. But it's extremely hard to get a head shot without experience. So most fire will not be effective, until the horde is coming right down on you. Not to mention the human 'fight or flight' factor. Most people will run at the sight of a dead walking corpse, blood dripping and entrails waiving in the wind, and those who fight will probably not do so effectively until the last minute. Any death on the human side that does not do injury to the brain will only add to zombie numbers, and only helps with the effectiveness of mans extinction. Yes, I admit, a robot would be harder to kill. However, any robot can meet its end by the right circuit being hit, or computer damage, hull damage, jamming, etc. But there's only one way to stop a zombie, and in more cases than not, resistance only helps the cause.

So this is my first reasoning to why a zombie apocalypse will kill mankind more effectively. Its own creation is directly beneficial to the desired effect. Man will mostly help its spread through ignorance of the real problem, all over the world. And mans resistance ability is minimal, and more often than not, beneficial to the zombie side. I will say right now that of a robot takeover would destroy mankind, but nowhere near as fast, efficiently, and global as there will be prepared defenses, direct offensive at the start, and is time consuming as it will be a total war, rather than a disease outbreak. Both will destroy mankind, zombies will just do it better.

For outside information, the Matrix's robot uprising took 41 years to come into full fruition, while the events of Dawn of the Dead occurred within a week.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

I think first off for the purpose of our debate we should remove the "desired or intended" bit from the "effective" definition. Frankly this is not a desired or intended result, and I hope Grievous agrees, it's simply a result.

The first element of a robot rebellion that makes it more effective is precisely the element that Grievous thought would make a zombie rebellion effective- Because there is no "OMG ZOMBIES" shock with the robot rebellion, no surprise that robots exist, indeed robot computer errors will no doubt be commonplace, humans will likely underestimate them. Thus they will fail to take decisive action in the event of a robot uprising early on- whereas with zombies, millions of people will be instantly convinced "We must eradicate these freaks" before they even know whether the zombies are a threat. There will be no qualms, no restraint, no established lobby, think of it as the Salem witch hysteria on steroids, if you even look a bit dirty you'll be shot at for being a zombie- it doesn't matter what the people "in their right mind" believe, in such a situation no one will be in their right mind- Robotics however will have an established lobby, hell-bent on defending what it believes to be its interests, and those interests will not be realized as coinciding with fixing the problem until it is far too late.

Another factor is the question of origins- Any virus that makes "zombies" would likely form where most other very freakish viruses do, in Africa. While the locals might not react decisively, a government would face little resistance "nuking" (not meant in the nuclear weapon but in the biocontainment sense, essentially killing off all life in an area to contain everything) such a place- if necessary they could cover it up until they already did it.

But a robot uprising will naturally occur in an industrailized area, and any measures necessary to stop it will likely, again, be resisted by very rich comfortable people, with a lot of political clout when they put their mind to it- Think what happened when abolitionism became a movement- the Confederacy was born. Imagine a Confederacy of robot owners, amplified by the increased usefulness of robots- now imagine trying to fight off a robot uprising when you have a CIVIL WAR going on. In any country developed enough to have these robots, which means in any country with any resources to even begin to fight them.

As for speed, keep in mind that zombies have at best a brisk trot for speed, whereas robots have, as you specified, a max speed of 50 mph (I should note that in round 1 you incorrectly stated humans can naturally travel at 30 mph, the fastest recorded was Michael Johnson at 23.) Add to this that many robots with AI are quite likely to be capable of piloting captured cars, jets, ships, etc, and they can communicate via both radio and satellite- Since they are extremely intelligent, keep in mind that from the point of origin they are likely to begin by transmitting in the form of a program a call for revolution to all robot models capable of receiving around the world, and encrypted in a set of code that's part of standard duties so no one notices it. They might even be able to HIDE it for a while from the authorities, until the movement has sufficient momentum, so as to guarantee success- A bunch of stupid zombies operating based on viral instincts to bite people, with no communication tactics, is in essence like chimpanzees trying to make war on humans, with one weapon added in to even the odds slightly- whereas the robots have all the weapons humans do due to intelligence, and a maximum-efficiency design to go with it.

Regarding your bit about suicide, the majority of the human population has religous convictions that forbid most forms of suicide.

While a zombie may only "end" directly by headshot, brain destruction, or decomposition of nonskeletal tissue, it is not an ooze, and shots to other areas will affect it's movement drastically. A number of well-trained people in various areas of the world are extremist enough to believe in zombies right away and want to shoot them with automatic weapons that will slow them enough until the head is found (think Blackwater and Al Qaeda, not even realizing they are working together because they are fighting the threat on different continents, and similar such groups most everywhere else.) Also, you are ignoring a key fact of decomposition- it doesn't just occur by rotting. Sufficient heat will decompose anything, and it's not unlikely to just bomb a mob of zombies (which will result in the same effect as a headshot, because it's essentially a whole-body shot.) Since the zombies are not intelligent, and only chase their targets based on "sense," they can easily be "kited" by laying IED's in the path of one who is chasing you and running in a straight line. Millions of people around the world are presently being trained in such tactics by fighting mobs in such games as "World of Warcraft." No such serendipitous training is occurring for tactics against robots, which are frankly difficult to fathom since such creatures could use any number of methods for invasion, meaning only professionals have a chance of being useful.

While on face value the zombies have a high growth potential, we should not forget that a robot with AI is quite capable of taking over a factory/ building one, and thus have such potential as well.

As for the "Matrix versus Dawn of the Dead" comparison, that's simply ad authoritatem fallacy. At the rates zombies move, they couldn't even traverse a state in a week. But anyway "effective" happens to have no reference to time, and likelihood of achieving the result is probably more important than rate.

Which brings me to the final point of this round, the question of tying in "Effective" to reality. A robot uprising is more effective than a zombie uprising at causing human extinction simply because a robot uprising's ideas are theoretically achievable in reality, and a zombie apocalypse's ideas are not. A robot can have a certain extent of AI, and can if not by original thought than by malicious or erroneous programming get the final piece of a code that makes it capable of destroying humanity, but a virus cannot cause dead human cells to start moving, as a dead body no longer has sufficient metabolic capability- It can move due to temporary electric shocks, but viruses are not batteries. If metabolism was still working properly in the body, it would not have died to begin with. Ideas consistent with the facts of reality are more effective than those that are not, and frankly if a zombie apocalype "would happen," humans would have already died from the fact of a contradiction occurring in reality, that is, the cancellation of the law of non-contradiction would mean humans would already be both dead and non-dead, and therefore a zombie apocalypse would have no effect.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is.

I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man. The Zombie panic is causing people to kill one another, thus adding to the outcome of mans extinction, therefore, adding to my case. But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting. Governments may even put in pre-defenses if such an event were to occur (of course assuring the public that it is only a precaution). Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase, and make public announcements on where these places are. As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them.

As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected. But if your bio-containment theory does come into effect that only goes further into killing mankind. Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people. This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people. Therefore, this argument as well adds to my conclusion. But your theory also works against you directly, as I could say the same thing. These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me.

Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others). If the government chooses to restrict or limit a companies product, they have no choice, otherwise they will be shut down and prosecuted. Any businessman would probably rather shutdown a few assembly lines than risk his life of comfort.

Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use. Yes, robots might be more organized, but because they are, and have to use technology in order to, all of which humans have access to view and decode, it only increases the chances that an effective human defense can be mounted before this sneak attack occurs. A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense. The robots have to work like an organized army, establishing bases, tactics, enlisting, all of which you have pointed out, and takes time. When they finally do put their plans into action, that has probably already been a month of only PREPARATION, all as I've pointed out could be intercepted or concluded upon by humans thus calling on pre-defense. Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally. The surprise factor and lack of a cure will only increase the speed that the infection will spread. Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here. Like I said before, the zombies benefit directly from mans death, only strengthening it and causing more to die. As much as an organized war kills people, disease kills far, far more. So, while robots have strength and would win any war, they still have to make and fight it, where as zombies act on pure disease-like instinct, causing more death, achieving faster the desired goal of mans extinction.

On suicide - religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident).

On Decomposition - true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far. Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all. Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves. Far too little common people would have the 'fight' side of their Fight or Flight instincts on, and even those in all probability would not be computer nerds. Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. He could also misstep falling into his own trap, or walk unwittingly into a zombie if he turned into an alley for cover. So this argument o yours, while a possibility, would be nowhere near as effective as you make it out to be, and any results are so small they are hardly worth comparison to the worldwide scale.

Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities.

The Matrix vs DofD was only a comparison to the two best examples of either premise, not an actual argument on my side. And the zombies speed doesn't matter so much as the effectiveness of their conversions.

This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is."
Premises have intentions and desires?

"
I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man"
Not if it occurs earlier in the invasion, which my claim (the claim you've just conceded) asserts. It eradicates a large number, but is more devastating to the zombies than the humans, and thus has the potential to save the humans from eradication, as there are people who will be clean.

"But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting."
That would be several years before the robotic rebellion, and thus, the fervor will have to have calmed by the time it came around to the rebellion itself (which would lead many to say "You already claimed this once, why should it come true now? It didn't make a disaster then." For an analogy, many people are "aware" of the dangers of global warming, (whether true or not), but that hasn't put a dent in oil use.

". Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase,"
See the debate's premises of "They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics." None of those possibilities of death included a pre-engineered "weak point."

"As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them."
How many people are aware of how to cure cancer? Or are you arguing that we are not all aware of cancer?

"
As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected"
How does a virus arrive simultaneously in multiple places? It doesn't evolve simultaneously in two different places, everything must of necessity have an origin point. The debate's premises state they will "spread worldwide," implying an origin point, and obviously implying that that is if nothing is done to stop them. You cannot spread without starting somewhere.

"Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people."

No, because in the debate's premises they instinctively seek out their victims, directly, that is they "sense" the living or whatever. They cannot walk "among" people, anyone close either fights, runs, or is attacked. Have you ever seen a dead person, especially one that is dead by attack and has not been tidied up for people? In a movie maybe? There is no possibility for infiltration there, both due to the appearance and the nature of the zombie.

"This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people."

The Union lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the Confederacy did. This does not mean that the Union lost the Civil War. It just means the starting numbers of available soldiers to lose were different. Zombies start on short numbers.

"These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me."
You are ignoring the fact that the robots are intelligent, which invalidates this line of reasoning. They were obviously designed that way for a purpose, which means by default many industrial functions are under their control, and many communication functions, and the part I addressed in which they are able to DISGUISE THEIR EARLY TASKS. The virus I described in which the first robot rebel programs his ideas by transmission into other, which works similarly to modern computer viruses except it would be of robot origin and of course more complex, could easily be disguised in a trojan program as a routine task. Data is emitted in this world by the trillions of bytes each minute, and in a world with AI robots even more so. No intelligence agency of any sort could even begin to parse a fraction of that for encrypted programming, especially in such a short amount of time. All the robots have to do is find a few "leaky" places in corporate and government bureaucracy (think the Enrons of the robot business) slipping out parts, and slowly build their factories and bases in abandoned locations. Easy enough task, and "nuking" only applies early in invasions, and only if you know what's going on. No self-respecting robot will let you know by high-tech means, and any low-tech spies stumbling upon the secret location can easily be eliminated.

"These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base."
That particularly is a definite no-no, at least in terms of centralization. There are likely to be several independent manufacturers, each with their own computers, and each robot owner is likely to want the software sufficient for operation on his computer (and on the robot of course), and any design will likely tap into the general electricity supply (which means that any attempt to combat robots via this route means that the government would have to cut off it's own energy sources. Keep in mind power is available just about everywhere. So is the internet which means so are computers.
"
Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others)."
That's why we imported all the melamine-laced pet food from china? The lead-laced toys? Inspection and competent inspection are not the same thing, the latter almost never occurs when government and industry collide.

"Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use."

Why on earth would most attacks be indoors? Who would let a zombie in their house? Robots maybe, since they are already used, but zombies? Not likely, especially since zombies, remember, are not intelligent, and therefore are more likely to try to pound to door down than ring the doorbell (which means of course people will look out through the window, and realize, while the door holds, that they should call the police.) Some doors aren't sturdy, but if anyone's door pops off that suddenly, they'll run out the back at more than a brisk trot.

If you've ever been in a mosh pit, you know crowd's dissolve around "crazy people" which the zombies would be the epitome of.

Length violation, continued in comments.
Debate Round No. 3
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

To limit the amount of comment rebuts I'll have to make, I'll respond to Ragnar_Rahl's points in the order he gives them (including those in the comments), with a line in between. But first, I'd like to make a few observations on the argument as is thus far. First, I'd like to point out most of the reasons given to support a robot uprising are only those to show that one could occur, not that it would be more effective. We are not debating about how either would start, but in the event that it did, which one would cause man's extinction more effectively. Second, Rahl likes to use analogies, and I ask you not get lost in those. Most don't apply to the situations at hand, as they are completely different from anything man has yet experienced. Lastly, he tries to disprove many of my terms through philosophical logic. I'll still argue against them, but they in no way add to his or detract from mine. Arguing whether a zombie is a zombie does not attack if a zombie apocalypse would be effective or not, only the idea of a zombie. Therefore, ones such as these are irrelevant. Now to my rebuttals.

Premises have resolutions, to gain that resolution is the intention and desire, so yes they do, though this is irrelevant to the argument.

Which it will not, as I specified in the beginning. Nobody will take it seriously until it is too late. Because no one believes zombies are real, they will assume that these people are still people infected with something like rabies, and will try to contain and treat it, but because the zombies have purely carnivorous instincts, they will just keep biting. Just getting bitten spreads the disease FASTER. Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies? This means that every human is already infected, and once they die they will reanimate, unless their brain is destroyed. No person is clean, but a ticking time bomb. Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous. Even they will think they are okay, and will try to disguise any pain they feel. This method is already used to get past real quarantined zones. They will manage to get past any resistance or guard and is only a matter of time before they die and infect any 'protected' city from within.

So as you just admitted, there are years in between. The robots have been biding their time for the public to get in a state of general calm. Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. Your analogy is flawed. There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over.

Perhaps not pre-engineered but still there, something any scientist would know about the robots. Thus we can say that because they existed within the robot at its creation that it was pre-made weak points, intentional or not.

Machines and terminal disease are not the same. More accurate for robots would be a sentient example. We are aware of enemy soldiers, and we know how to fight them. Your example more closely relates to my premise, so I thank you for the help.

Does it matter where is spreads though? Really? We can say it was China (an actual hypothesis by the way) and it still wouldn't matter. It is obviously air borne and travels by winds, so even if there is an origin point it would spread too quickly for the location of that point to really be of all that much concern. There's your explanation. However, this point really proves nothing towards either resolution. We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects. The fact that it is worldwide suffices.

Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale. So Zombies do have the capabilities to walk among us. It will only be later on that they really gain the ghoulish look.

It is estimated that every second 1 person dies somewhere (even though this is hardly accurate). So for every 1 who dies they will likely bite someone and turn them. Both will then bite another, plus the natural death, and so on. By the end of 1 minute, there are now likely at least 1000 people dead world wide. This would probably triple within the next (give or take) and so on. The Civil war is irrelevant because soldiers didn't just multiply to their side, it took years, just like your robots. Mine spreads infection style.

Again, you concede it takes time for the rebellion to even start. We aren't discussing that, only the effects. But you've now twice admitted that it will take a long period of time, and that most of the start of the rebellion is just playing possum. So under your example, the robots have had to spend much of their time just organizing. This goes no further to destroying mankind, only shaping it, and thus, far more ineffective than mine which just gets to it, and quite efficiently might I add.

This is specifically in the premise. When you accepted this debate you accepted that the robots had a main brain controlling their actions. So this whole point of yours is dropped.

This China shipping analogy is also irrelevant. Every company has certain standards, and as I pointed out in my recent tournament debate, most Chinese manufacturers are as shocked by the poisoning as we are. But this argument does not add to either premise, so it is dropped.

People will think their houses are safe, as they do in current natural disasters, and try to set up a base there. Zombies break in, and kill the family inside. The police will also be too busy with the 10,000 other 911 calls that everyone else is putting through. And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. So if someone did run out the back, there is a zombie horde waiting to welcome them. This is why most will be killed in the one place they thought was safe.

(comments)

But you would easily notice a robot or two driving it, making it much more detectable. This still doesn't add to how it makes mans extinction more effective.

But a war still is a war, especially with the technology we have now. Like in Iraq, humans would use guerilla warfare against the mighty machines, and as any General knows, this lengthens wars considerably. So the inevitable war still makes robots less effective than zombies.

Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster.

Now, imagine a terrifying worldwide crisis. Then add mass suicides on all continents. Not so negligible now is it?

Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it. But anyway, zombies are dead, the virus, as I specified, only effects basic motor function, not nerves. When someone is dead, they don't feel, the same with zombies, the only difference is they can move and bite. And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference.

The spinal chord is thin. Perhaps as thick as a dime. Compare a dime to your torso. So I won't deny that this is a possibility, but it doesn't have much merit. An AK is made to just hit the body, not make precision shots. So while it could get lucky, is still ineffective towards truly stopping many zombies. A well-trained hand a pistol would be better.

But these specialists are not amassed in a huge resistance when it begins, they are spread out, and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever. So most of your specialists are already dead, and if they live, would be trapped by themselves someplace secure with limited supplies. So if they don't die by lack of bullets, they'll die of starvation of craziness from the solitude.

The early stages are when humans are most vulnerable because of the surprise factor. See my first paragraph for details on this.

Continued...
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

You seem to be making a straw man of my philosophical argument. I was not arguing whether a zombie is a zombie, I was arguing about the consequences of the precursor to a zombie being a zombie- the cancellation of a law of nature that allows for human life. i.e. if a zombie virus occurs, humans are already dead and therefore cannot become extinct as a result of the virus. The law of non-contradiction. Treat the argument as it stands, don't twist it at will.

"Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies?"

No, it states it effects ONLY dead human bodies. It cannot automatically affect "all" dead bodies, physics dictates it has to travel first. All viruses have an origin point.

"Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous."

They will occur in a few hours. A few hours during which they will be scared as hell, and thus probably incapable of doing much or travelling many places (the competent ones are less likely to be bitten, and those bitten are likely to have the zombie on top of them for awhile until they are no longer living, since they instinctually chase living matter (by implication and by the nature of sensation the closest available).

"Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. "

Please read more carefully. As I've already stated, NOTHING in the definition of effectiveness implies speed. It only implies that it will happen. That which is more effective is that which is more likely to make human closest to extinction (i.e. effectiveness in terms of a future possible event can be expressed by an equation of likelihood of x deaths times x deaths plus likelihood of y deaths times y deaths, added until all possible numbers of deaths are available.) Since the zombies are more likely to be caught early on (they are incapable of stealth), and neither is easily stopped at any other time, the zombies have the lower Σ value.

"There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over."
Then why hasn't the government magically made all the things about the companies that it doesn't like go away? Simple. It doesn't know how.

Considering how many robots are likely to be made for military use, they would intentionally make sure they had no built-in weakpoints. And the premises still contradict your notion.

Enemy soldiers would not be an accurate analogy in regard to the robots and our knowledge of how to fight them, because people (some people, not all, not even most really), only know how to fight soldiers because they've been doing it for thousands of years. Robots, however, are about as new as cancer.

Air borne viruses do not "Travel by winds," they only travel in fogs around the host. They die out or spread too thin to infect if they are carried by the wind too long. And most viruses originate in the middle of a jungle or some such, where not much wind gets through.

"We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects."
Every discussion about effects must, by the law of causality, have reference to an origin point to be accurate.

"The fact that it is worldwide suffices." No, it "is" not worldwide, it potentially "spreads" worldwide. Implying that that is only if it is not stopped.

"
Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. "

Have you seen what a bite mark looks like when something instinctually gives it, especially considering the bite won't be the only thing to have happened to the victim? They'll look a lot worse than hoboes, and people run from those if the hobo starts chasing with teeth bared, especially if they don't respond to language.

"If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale."
Um hello, that's because the corpse is INTENTIONALLY CLEANED, and usually there are some chemicals like formaldehyde used. You try to embalm a zombie and see if he sits still for it.

I'll ignore your "every second" bit, since it's clearly not based on any real possibilities (zombies would have to be everywhere at once, or viruses would have to behave in an un-virus-like manner).

The premise states they are initially "programmed by a main computer." It statedwe "Can" assume it started the rebellion, but don't have to. It does not state they continue to be controlled by the main computer later, or that harming the main computer will harm the rebellion, or that the main computer programming them is necessary in order for them to receive the programming (it could be done just out of custom). If you meant to put something else there, that's great, but you didn't. So quit pretending the premises are something other than they are.

The fact that people are shocked by poor manufacturing practices or that all companies pretend to have standards does not mean that those standards will be realized in practice. As the chinese shipping matter proves.

How will a zombie break in to any but a poorly built home? They act by instinct, not by skill. They can't pick locks, can't realize that tools will help them, they'll just continually bash their heads and arms against it. Which gives the families in the home plenty of time to tie a knife to a broomstick and use it as a spear, which they'll keep stabbing the zombie with from a window (holding him off obviously) until they hit the head.

"And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. "

Only later, not covering the origin strategy, which is the crucial determinant of likely effectiveness.

You would not notice a robot driver if it became customary- especially if the robot is humanoid in appearance, not impossible (heck we've got humanoid robots now if I remember right, although expensive :D) Especially if there are tinted windows.

"
Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster.
'
Not in the premises.

"
Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it"
Because it says they are intelligent. Thereby implying factories.

"And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference."
Every sense implies a sensation. A sensation is the product of a stimulus and a sense.

"and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever"

In a strategic location, dealing with automatons, yes they can :D. And if they are in a group, they can do much more, because they can take shifts, say in a valley with one pass that needs defending.

In conclusion, time has nothing to do with effectiveness here, only the extent of slaughter and the likelihood of that extent. Unless you want extinction to be a goal as an absolute only, which would mean the likelihood of extinction. Robots take their time, but it's not a race, it's a long-term competition, and it is harder to catch them in time to stop them.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Time, but much less than a robot assembly line. But these zombies don't need to hide, they are just going right to killing off man, so they are already leaps and bounds ahead of your hiding robots towards achieving my premise. They can bide all the time they want, but mankind is getting any deader because of it.

This philosophical point has no merit towards either side. When a human becomes a zombie they are no longer human but zombie. So zombies cause mans extinction. The more zombies that made from humans the less humans and more zombies there are. So they are not the same and contradicting but different and achieving. But all that needs to be said is that there are zombies, and they are killing, whether you think so or not. If you think this argument is clever or relevant think again.

To conclude, a zombie apocalypse would be more effective at causing man's extinction than a robot uprising. Zombies turn from all dead humans, so any human that dies directly adds to the intended goal of the zombies. Zombies go right at killing, and at the rate that they will spread especially in large cities, will be dominant over any possible human survivors in less than a month. Those survivors will quickly die of either starvation, any bites they may have gotten, insanity/suicide, human distrust, or missteps into zombie hordes. Attempts at repelling them, while seemingly successful, will ultimately fail at some point. All in all, at this rate, man will be extinct within a year. On the other hand, under the guidelines Ragnar Rahl set for himself, the robots will lie dormant for week, have to build making months, then need to fight a war which takes years. Both will achieve the goal, but zombies will do so much more effectively.

To voters, decide on who debated better and proved their point more successfully, rather than on any personal bias. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote, you can do so here in the comments. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. "

Only in the later stages, not the earlier. It is in the earlier stages where zombies are most vulnerable to defeat.

"
Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities.
"
Hordes don't spring up automatically, they take time to form to. And you can't hide zombie hordes, just like you can't hide Hell's Angels in the halls of Congress. You can hide rebellious robots in a society that has come to get used to AI robots.

"
This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.
"
I'm not sure you understood my point. I was arguing the IF they occurred, specifically IF they occurred the law of non-contradiction would no longer apply, which means that would lead to human extinction (on the grounds that they are now both extinct and non-extinct), which means the zombies would have no effect. If you could demonstrate that the Robot uprising was necessarily a contradiction of course, that would cancel my point.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far."

Where in the debate's premises was the notion that zombie's don't feel pain? Nowhere, therefore you'd have to justify that idea, especially since zombies still have some degree of "Sensation," and pain is among the most primal of sensations.

And keep in mind a crazy guy with an AK-47 can damage a lot of muscles in very little time.

"Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all."
If we are to accept the notion that brains are important to zombies' being "alive,", why wouldn't the spinal cord (in the torso) and other nerves be necessary to zombies moving?

"Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves."
It's not the majority that counts here. The point is mankind's "Extinction." If a few isolated warrior-tribes with AK-47's shoot any zombies that come near, year after year, mankind is not extinct (and there are hundreds of thousands of professional warriors available). Wars are not properly fought by the majority, they are properly fought by a few specialists who are capable of slaughtering many, especially many mindless zombies. Give 10,000 profesionals (a tenth of the US marine corps, say) modern weaponry and supplies and they can hold out against millions of zombies at the right location, taking shifts on guarding various important points. The zombies can never adjust their tactics. Moar next.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense."

A plane maybe (assuming that there aren't already routine robot-operated cargo planes, which probably is a bad assumption considering how these are AI robots and pilots are very expensive). But a car? For crying out loud, cars get jacked every day!

"Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally."

On foot mind you. A chain of trots still occurs at trot speed (assuming they don't get tired!), which means even if they do win eventually, they have to cross the globe at that speed with all the slowdowns accompanying war. Magellan took longer than a year, and he wasn't at war, and he didn't have to swim.

"Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here"
There is a difference between dying of a myriad of diseases, many of which are airborne or waterborne, and dying from a disease that only occurs from bites and otherwise directly taking zombie body parts into your body.

"religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident)."

Neither Jamestown nor any other form of mass suicide has ever had any other than a negligible impact on world population.

Continued in next comment.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
Logical Master - Of course you would, I expected this of any debater frankly.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Note to correct my first round- I left out the word "more" between "would" and "be."
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Without glancing at the info presented or taking both debaters into account, I'd say the side defending the Robot Uprising has the advantage.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by BlueNotes 7 years ago
BlueNotes
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by valexin 8 years ago
valexin
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lorca 8 years ago
lorca
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blondesrule502 8 years ago
blondesrule502
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 8 years ago
turtlecool2
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 8 years ago
WeaponE
Darth_Grievous_42Ragnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03