The Instigator
NeverWakeUp
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

A chainsaw is the worst weapon in a zombie apocalypse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/2/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,718 times Debate No: 13875
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

NeverWakeUp

Pro

The chainsaw has been used widely in zombie movies, video games, etc. However, as proved in The Zombie Survival Guide, the chainsaw is one of the worst weapons to use.
1. It is heavyweight.
It is exaggerated how a normal person can possibly lift this weapon above their head and use it with ease to slice through a zombie. The people that normally use it are extremely muscular and the people that don't have difficulties welding it.
2. It is cumbersome.
Why carry around a chainsaw when you can carry that ax and (loaded)pistol you saw a while back? The truth about its weight is that it is difficult to carry to and fro. It will either have to be carried by a strong member or in a vehicle that can support its weight.
3. It uses fuel.
The truth is, that fuel you just poured into your chainsaw perhaps had caused you your life. You will also have to carry that fuel tank will you along with the chainsaw while you are running from a hoard of zombies.
4. Only one or two kills can be performed.
The blade, much like the one of a jagged blade, may get jammed into the body of a zombie, causing you to abandon it and get killed. The blade may also become filled with the organs and blood, rendering it useless.
This is my first debate. Who will challenge me?
Enjoy.
Atheism

Con

I thank my opponent for providing an interesting debate topic, and I look forward to a pleasant (if odd) debate.

Let's get the definitions out of the way.

DEFINITIONS
=========
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Weapon - A means used to defend against or defeat another
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Worst - Most inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Zombie - A supernatural spirit that reanimates a dead body
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Apocalypse - An event of great importance, violence, etc

BURDEN OF PROOF
============

As Con, my burden of proof is to provide at least one (1) weapon that is worse overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc.) in case of a zombie apocalypse.

As Pro, my opponent's burden of proof is to prove that a chainsaw is the worst weapon overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc.) in case of a zombie apocalypse.

CONTENTIONS
========

My opponent has named some qualities of a chainsaw that would prove to be ineffective at holding back a zombie horde. However, I will contend his points 1, 2 & 4. I will deal with 1 & 2 as a single point, as they are effectively the same thing.

1& 2) 'It is too heavy/difficult for an average person to lift & use.'

My opponent's argument is that in all actuality, a chainsaw would prove too heavy for a normal person to safely/easily lift in order to defend oneself. However, he has not provided the average weight of a chainsaw to prove this claim, nor has he provided any information regarding how much an average person can lift comfortably.
Also, my opponent forgets that in times of great distress, a human receives an 'energy boost', as it were, from his/her body in the form of adrenaline, which is a hormone secreted by the adrenal gland. This adrenaline rushes to the heart, and speeds the rate of breathing. This allows for more oxygen intake, and the heart starts to work faster. This provides for more energy available at one's disposal. I would certainly think that this is valid because for most, if not all, people a zombie apocalypse is definitely a reason for great distress, thus enabling the 'energy boost,' and therefore letting the person lift up said chainsaw much more easier than my opponent would like the audience to think. (1)

4) 'Only one or two kills can be performed.'

My opponent's argument here is that the chainsaw's blade may become stuck in the innards of a zombie, and this would force you to abandon it. His reason for this is that the chainsaw's blades are jagged, and therefore easier to get caught in some zombie's body. My opponent fails to note that the chainsaw is moving at a very rapid speed, and thus is highly unlikely to get caught in a body. Not only that, but the rest of his claim is based on conjecture, and is not supported on any true facts.

As for now, I do believe I have made most of my opponent's claims invalid.

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
==============

As for this round, I shall choose three different weapons.

The first, a pair of scissors.

The second, 5 micro moles of water contained in a very small, fragile, plastic pipette capable of holding 6 micro moles of liquid.

The third, a golf ball.

My opponent has not set up any requirements or restrictions for the weapons of choice, so my picks are acceptable.

ARGUMENTS
========

My first set of arguments will deal with my first choice, a pair of scissors.

1a) Too weak.

A pair of scissors would not have much destructive capabilities. To 'kill' any zombies, my pair of scissors must do something seriously fatal, like breaking through the strong skull of a human to destroy the brain, which is the traditional method of death. I assume that in a zombie, blood is not flowing, and the only thing compelling the corpse to move is to destroy its brain. However, a pair of scissors would not be able to generate the force necessary to kill zombies. Even if it did, I could argue that my opponent's choice, a chainsaw, would be able to do much more.

1b) No reach.

With a pair of scissors, I would not be able to kill any zombies possible without getting my limbs devoured. Since a pair of scissors requires one to get in arm's reach of a zombie, where they could easily pull me in and eat me, it is not a very good weapon.

1c) Not able to kill anything else in any form.

Scissors would not be able to do anything than allow the user to attempt to destroy the brain, and for reasons already given, this would not work, as I'd either be devoured before I got the chance, or I wouldn't be able to penetrate and destroy the brain.

Scissors can not help me do a thing.

My second set of arguments will deal with my incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water.

2) I can't possibly do anything with it!

That's just it, point-blank. I can't use it. At all. It has no sharpness, no dangerous components, nothing. I could try and make a zombie choke on it, but two things are wrong with that.

1) It is so small it can't choke anything.
2) I would have no weapon left.

I think I have adequately shown why an incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water is much worse than a chainsaw at slaughtering zombies.

And now, onto my final item, a golf ball.

3) Destructive abilities are pitifully low.

The best thing I could do with it would be to chuck it REALLY hard at a zombie and hope it somehow builds up enough force to penetrate the brain of the blasted thing, and still retain enough force to burst out of the other end of it. Obviously, a throw from an average person, even at their hardest, couldn't build up enough strength for that, including the adrenalin boost.

I thank my opponent for an interesting and slightly humorous debate topic, and I give the floor to him.
Debate Round No. 1
NeverWakeUp

Pro

Thank you for replying to my debate.
First of all, I'm afraid I was mistaken in my argument. What I meant to say was that a chainsaw is a terrible weapon, not that there was a weapon worse than it. But I will still try to continue this debate despite my faults.

I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you. No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you. Though this may lead to certain death from a hoard, you may only need to kill one or two zombies by sticking the blade straight through the eye and into the brain itself, so it can in fact kill a zombie.
The second set of arguments I find to be very unique. First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run. Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate, you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it. But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising?
The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful.
I am also a she, not a he.
Atheism

Con

I thank my opponent for her argument, and her dedication to the debate even though she did not define it to her liking.

Onto her arguments.

1)Scissors rebuttal.

//I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you//
This debate is not, was not, and will never be about the forethought or realistically of said weapon chosen, so my opponent's argument is invalid. We are discussing which is worse, my weapons, or the chainsaw. The fact that we would not likely use these weapons does NOT come into play here. If it did, my opponent should have specified. She did not.

//No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you.//
My opponent's sole argument saying that a pair of scissors is better than a chainsaw rests on these two assumptions.

1) It is sharp.
I won't contend this, but I will say that a chainsaw, even with the rotary blades not power up, still is incredibly sharp, sharper than a pair of scissors, anyways.

2)You can kill at least one or two zombies with it.
She makes this claim despite the fact that I posited you would DIE while trying to kill a zombie. I also made an argument saying that a pair of scissors, in the hands of a normal human, would not be able to penetrate a zombie's skull, and destroy the brain. She has not rebutted this. Also, please take note that a chainsaw would be able to kill the same amount of zombies a pair of scissors would, if not more, with less risk to the user, because it gives more reach.

2) Incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water rebuttal.

//First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run.//
But it is not. It is a tiny plastic pipette with 5 micro moles of liquid water. Not an empty cup. This invalidates the rest of your arguments concerning this, but I'll rebut them anyways.

//Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. //
We are talking about the worst weapon in the world, not the worst distraction.

//When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate,/ /
When did teammates ever come into play? You should've specified this.

//you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it.//
Do you have any proof regarding this? I would think, given that the zombie is practically dead, and it's nerve endings are destroyed, it would not feel a tiny pipette bouncing of its head.

//But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising?//
We are not talking whether the items in question are realistic or not. We are discussing if they would be effective in combat against a zombie horde.

3) Golf ball rebuttal

//The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful.//
That would be all fine and dandy if we were talking about a golf ball AND gold club. But we are only talking about a golf club. Argument negated.

My opponent has not offered once piece of evidence showing that her weapon is worse than mine. I have shown time and again why my choice of weapons are terrible to use.

I think it is clear who is winning. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
NeverWakeUp

Pro

NeverWakeUp forfeited this round.
Atheism

Con

Fortunately, for me and my opponent, she has now realized the futility of her arguments regarding this subject. That, or she couldn't post her argument in time. I'd like to think it was the former.

I thank the voters for reading this one-sided debate.
Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Your point? I gave her the conduct point, and everyone and their mother can do so as well. If anyone read the debate, they have to give me Sources at the very least. Anyone who is RATIONAL should give me the Convincing Arguments.
Posted by Fallshock24 6 years ago
Fallshock24
At least she didn't vote for herself
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
WTF. How did she have better sources than me? SHE DIDN'T POST ANY.
How did she have better grammar and spelling? I had no spelling mistakes at all.
Wtf is missing at you idiots?
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
no the worse would be using a tooth pick as a weapon or you can try spitting at them like of dead rising( that would do crap).
Posted by thisnameowns 6 years ago
thisnameowns
The contender focused on the definition of one word in all of his/her arguments: worst. Instead of discussing the attributes of the weapon in question, the chainsaw, s/he uses points irrelevant in the given scenario (zombie apocalypse) and industry specific language in an attempt to obfuscate and sway the reader to his/her side. In addition, throughout the debate the Contender has shown blatant disrespect as well as a severe lack of sportsmanship towards the Instigator.

Would've voted for pro except the fact that this website asks for my phone number. I've had very unpleasant experiences in the past with the phone number scam and I'm a bit more cautious regarding such matters now.
Posted by NeverWakeUp 6 years ago
NeverWakeUp
No, I just have a life to attend to.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Whoops, forgot my sources.
(1)http://www.blurtit.com...
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I know.
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
This is too easy a win for Con.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
I think I'll just take this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: a plastic pipette with five micromoles of water? This isn't a weapon, you should know that because you presented the definitions. A pair of scissors would be superior to a chainsaw because of their light weight and quick action. Even a two year old would be able to muster enoungh force to stab a zombie through the eye socket. And a golf ball could be used as a projectile which would make it a ranged weapon and therefore superior to a pair of scissors and by way of hypothetical syllogism superior to a chainsaw. In Pros argument he claims the chainsaw is out of fuel. which renders any argument about it getting stuck in flesh mute. A fueless chainsaw cannot defeat anyone.
Vote Placed by Switchlapse 6 years ago
Switchlapse
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:43 
Vote Placed by drawoh_kcirtap 6 years ago
drawoh_kcirtap
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Fallshock24 6 years ago
Fallshock24
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
NeverWakeUpAtheismTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15