The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Humans would survive the typical ( slow zombie ) zombie apocalypse.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 70376
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Let me begin by establishing what exactly the typical zombie apocalypse is.

The typical zombie apocalypse involves a single person becoming a zombie ( patient 0 ) and the virus spreading by bite only from person to person. The typical apocalypse also involves the typical zombie. The typical zombie is slow and lumber around until it is stimulated. Once stimulated it moves at a jogging pace. Typical zombies cannot climb ladders, are incapable of using weapons or tools. One discription of the common zombie is "the dumb zombie" for the simple reason that they have lost complex brain functions. For an example of the typical zombie I will use the walkers from the Walking Dead. World War Z shows zombies that are not typical and as such these aren't examples of typical zombies. Animals are not sucseptible to infection. With that established I will state several points.

1. The first 30 minutes of the apocalypse could easily be the last.

Think about this. Patient 0 falls ill at home and proceeds to fall unconscious. Who ever is living with this person the calls 911 ( or whatever emergency number is in place in their country ) and paramedics arrive. Givin the typical amount of time it takes to turn the patient will reach the hospital. At the hospital there WILL ( in most countries ) be security guards. The patient turns in the ER and bites several doctors. The floor or wing would be immediately locked down or considered contaminated. Security would enter the room and likely beat the first zombie to death with night sticks or other weapons. The biten doctors would be quarantined ( as is protocol ) for examination. They would enter unconsciousness and we all know what happens later. After a second incident the Security and remaining doctors would know what was happening and lock te remaining unconscious and bitten patients in to confirm. Sure enough... they would likely call the police and the zombies would be killed.

2. Police response.

Failing my last theory the hospital or neighborhood would be quickly infected. Police would arrive. Cops would rush the area and likely attempt a non lethal response first ( stun guns, pepper spray, or batons ) this would fail. Luckily though we live in a world where zombies are popular in TV and movies. Officers would quickly catch on and open fire, aiming for head shots. The hospital, street, etc. Would be surrounded with road blocks manned by armed cops. Citizens attempting to run by would be searched for bites. Armoured SWAT and riot control officers would arrive at the contaminated zone. I've seen the armour they wear in person. It can stop most knives and deal with most attacks involving blunt or stabbing objects. If the armour can do that it can stop some zombie from bitting through it. SWAT would quickly clear the area and kill remaining zombies.

3.The might of modern militaries

Let's say the plague infects Millions of people. The Military would be deployed in force. The largest armies in the world are those of the US, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, India, France, etc. The largest one ( usually excepted as China ) has 7.5 million soldiers. These are smart, heavily armored, combat ready, highly mobile men and women with powerful ranged weapons. They are pitted against a bunch of slow moving, dumb, creatures with clearly exposed heads ready to be shot. Zombies don't have guns an move slowly. This means that a soldier could easily kill 50 zombies on his own all in one encounter before being so much as touched by one. Military forces would lock down cities, air ports, and towns with walls, checkpoints, and watch towers. Soldiers on mounted guns would mow down any zombie that gets close. A sniper in a tower could kill hundreds of them since they can't even climb the ladder up to him. Of course Police and Military agencies would also deploy helicopters. When is the last time you saw a zombie fly. Remember the typical zombie cannot fly or swim. Helicopters would effectively doom cities full of zombies to be destroyed by machine gun fire. Bombing raids and Napalm would also be effective. Navies would also be used. Sea born fleets would house evacuated civilians and would be in accessible to zombies.

4. CDC, WHO and other medical response.

Agencies like the CDC and WHO would be quick to quarantine areas and perform tests on any trying to exit. Reserchers would look for a cure. In movies none is ever found but who says that they wouldn't find one in real life.

5. Outer Space.

We currently have a massive biological research facility in outer space. The International Space Station would serve as a Cure research facility compleatly inaccesible to zombies until such a time that supplies from Earth stopped coming.

6. The doomsday bunkers.

Many of the world's leaders ( US President Obama, Russian president Putin, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to name a few ) have massive bunkers underneath their residences that are reportedly capable of housing them for years before supplies run out. These bunkers also are reported to be capable of withstanding Nuclear blasts, let alone some zombies smacking at the door. Inside the bunkers are fully operational communications systems and control computers that allow for Nuclear Weapons Launch.

7. Nuclear Bombs

Zombies can take alot of damage. Despite that nothing can survive a nuclear bomb. Look at the photos from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were Atom bombs far less powerful or destructive than modern Nuclear Missiles. Once a country fell other government would likely fire Nuclear Weapons to prevent further spread. All zombies in the area would be disintegrated.

8. North Korea

With a Military sizes of around 7,000,000 ( nearly 1/3 of the nation ) North Korea fields the world most heavily defended boarders and oceans. There is an army of around 1,000,000 stationed at the boarder with South Korea making it a near impossibility to enter or exit over the boarder without dying in a hail of gunfire ( and mine blasts, missiles and artillery ). NK also has a border artillery force capable of wiping out nearly 30 percent of SK in 1 day. No zombie would ever make it in. As evil as the regime is it is certainly capable of defending it self.

9. Island nations.

There are hundreds of isolated island nations and micronations out there that would not be accessible to a zombie. Many of these places wouldn't even notice that any ting had happened until years after the rest of the world fell. Even large populous islands like Cuba or even Australia would be quick to lock down ports and airports.

10. Common Knowledge.

Unlike in movies we are lucky to have the common knowledge that killing a zombie means hitting it in the head. Citizens would take arms fast, if not with guns then with bats, knives and even hockey sticks. They would know exactly where to aim.

Vote Pro!


I accept the debate. I think that this is a great topic, good luck to you.

I will begin by rebutting your points, and form my argument.

1. The first 30 minutes of the apocalypse could easily be the last.

Think about this, in third world countries people will not actually realize the danger of the zombies. There wouldn't be enough time to successfully get rid of the zombie problem, and if there is a virus it would probably not be eradicated, and there would be more "patient zeroes."

2. Police response

In most countries, normal police officers don't have guns. How do you expect fat officers with batons to successfully fend from a zombie invasion? They would need an army, and again there would probably be so many zombies by then that the invasion would be spread out. Again, human nature causes people to run away from danger rather then fight, and that would be a serious problem.

3. Military

While I agree that militaries are quite good, modern guns don't have the damage to be able to kill zombies, and many militaries don't have soldiers with good training or equipment. And if there are forces that lock down and evacuate citizens, how do you know there won't be someone who doesn't have symptoms yet? Maybe they will get it while they sleep and slowly kill people and cause chaos. People don't just step aside for soldiers, they RUN and get in the way of soldiers.

4. CDC and WHO

If the CDC/WHO was so effective, then why is ebola and H1N1 so bad? They are unreliable and normally corrupt agencies.

5. Outer space.

The ISS wouldn't be used. Too much money and resources would go towards saving earth, rather then a couple of astronauts. Instead, research would have to be done in bunkers which would be incredibly risky.

6. Doomsday bunkers.

This might be the survive part. But, then again what is your definition of survive? Do you think because a couple of rich heads of state survive, then humans as a whole survive? I think billions of people will die, and it won't at all be a victory. By the time the virus mutates it is very possible that people inside the bunkers could get infected, and when they need supplies they will go outside, and be greeted by millions of zombies. It won't work, and everyone will still die.

7. Nuclear

Yea, humans will totally survive when hundreds of bombs are over their heads. This defeats the purpose of survival.

8. North Korea

Hundreds of millions of zombies may enter from China, from the north. Unless the blast the bridges, they won't survive. Also, how do you know a missionary or a secret refugee from China doesn't come back in with the virus? Too many chances mate.

9. Islands

Today's world sees hundreds of flights go to islands. This may be a destination for navies and stuff, but if just one person on each island has a virus then it is pointless.

10. Common knowledge.

Governments control people. You can't have guns in most nations, which is why there isn't effective. democracy in those nations. People won't have good defensive resources.

All your arguments are redundant.

It is quite clear, that the pure stupidity of people and corruption of governments won't allow for humans to survive. How can you call it survival if 7 billion people die? Governments will crumble, nuclear war will ensue and I think that the radiation from nukes, the pure and utter chaos, and the lack of funds or people to even BEGIN to create vaccines will make the world stand still.

There simply wouldn't be any life.
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin by congratulating you for how good a job you have just done. I will now state other arguments as well as reinforce a few previous ones.

1. The first 30 minutes.

You are correct. Many third world contries would have trouble here. It is largely chance or luck as to where the virus begins. I would however like to state that third world controls are not compleatly defenceless and most have a reputation for war lords, terrorist groups, militias, pirates and other evil organizations that would likely hold ground and fight due to the pure fear of their twisted leaders and the punishments following failure. However you are correct in saying that third world contries are much worse off.

2. Police

Yes, again patient zeros location could be a determining factor. However I will state that many of the countries you are talking about ( Britain for example ) still provide their police departments with significant armories and require that cities have SWAT and riot control responses. While their lack of an immediate armed response would set them back a few minutes it likely wouldn't ruin their chance compleatly.

3. Modern Militaries

True civilians can be a problem but in places like Syria, Iran and North Korea, the government really dosent care about collateral damage. These militaries would gladly bomb their own civilians into oblivion in order to eliminate an apocalypse in their borders. Even China might be more agrees I've in its shoot first policy. I will repeat what I said about the value of the Navy as well. Having a massive naval fleet ( like China, the US and NK ) would enable the evacuation of citizens to ships where zombies cannot follow. Citizens would certainly be searched for bites and likely be forced to submit to CDC or WHO blood testing Before evacuation to a safe zone. Military checkpoints would likely be outfitted with such medical checkpoints to ensure that the threat is removed. I will also note that in World War Z ( where zombies were more than typical and don't even qualify here ) the Israeli government noticed the virus in India and built huge walls around major cities. Countries would likely do this and what typical zombie can climb a 10-20 story wall. I would be surprised if a typical zombie could climb a single story wall. This method was used successfully in the game, the Last of Us, as well. Also, when you said that modern guns won't kill zombies it confused me somewhat. A 1700s flintlock musket could kill a zombie if you scored a head shot. You could kill it with a rock if you hit it in the right spot. Headshots kill.

4. CDC and WHO

I will state a great success on WHO's part. They managed to push the ebola virus out of 2 countries in west Africa and they have managed to prevent any significant spread outside of the 3 main remaining countries. Sure a few people in the US were infected and a few in Scotland but it isn't spreading very fast. I will also state that WHO and CDC have a vaccine for ebola. The problem is that they have not yet managed to mass produce it. It has tested successfully in the US on people already though. I read about a woman in the news who took it and she came out cured.

5. Space

While I will note that in modern time this is not a possibility if this outbreak were to occur in the future slightly, it is the current accepted belief of NASA and most other space agencies that Mars colonization will be occurring in 2025 with the landing of the first humans into their living areas. This project has begun now. These people are expected to begin travel to their living quarters there ( which are designed to be self sustaining due to the planned plant life installation and water drilling in the poles) . They are expected to launch years prior to 2025 so if this occurs a few years in the future a small population may escape. It's not much but it is something.

6. The doomsday bunkers

Luckily these leaders do not enter the bunkers alone. Most have protocol in place that ensures several special operations soldiers go in with them. So years later when the food runs out ( and the zombies are 95 percent decomposed due to all the time they had to rot ) Secret Service or Spetznaz should have no problem scavenging. Especially since the zombies would have long since abandoned the cities due to the lack of food. The zombies would have wandered out to the forest looking for wildlife to eat.

7. Nuclear Bombs

You are right seems like a bad idea. But when countries are compleatly over run and half way across the globe it won't really effect you negatively if you fire the nuclear missiles. Imagine that the Western Hemisphere falls to zombies but Russia is still intact. Russia fields an arsenal of at least 8000 nukes. They could destroy that entire half of the planet with little to no harm coming to themselves. It's a worst case scenario decision but one nations would likely make.

8. North Korea

The North Koreans field a rather heavy force on the Chinese border as well as some decently sizable walls. They built that there to prevent anyone from sneaking in or out. They don't want some American with a camera releasing the truth due to poor border security. They quite literally designed their borders to be nearly impossible to cross. Very few people have ever escaped the regime. And those were people who were smart enough to be stealthy and hide constantly on their way out. Some dumb zombie who smells destibctly of rotting corpse and dosent know to move quietly would be easily spotted and shot opon approach. The North Koreans would likely add fortifications to the Chinese border when the outbreak began anyway Givin their reputation for paranoia.

9. Island nations

Luckily many islands are micronations. These are not even recognized as contries due to their small size. One of these ( Sealand for instance ) very rarely sees people coming or going. Given that these have populations as low as 20 people it will be real obvious if someone tries to get in unauthorized.other small island nations are very much isolated and third world and don't maintain much contact with the outside world besides military cooperation.

10. Common Knowledge.

While you are right about gun restriction in some countries many countries would likely arm the public in this case in order to prevent the spread of the virus. Citizens would likely form armed militias as well. You also didn't deny the fact that guns or no guns, people will still find melee weapons, and tools that can be used for blunt or stabbing attacks to the head. Civilian survivors would likely raid police and military armouries for guns.

11. Decompossure

This is a big one. A zombie is a corpse reanimated only in basic movement and primitive brain function. Zombies are known to decompose like any corpse as time goes on. This means that zombies will become gradually weaker as the months pass by. After a few years ( long before the food runs out in the doomsday bunkers ) zombies brains would have decomposed into dust leaving only and empty skeleton. The skin would, over time, grow brittal and fall of followed by the muscles disintegrating into nothing. With this occurring something as simple as a decent BB gun would be capable of killing a zombie with a head shot. All we need to do is keep one man and one woman alive for 2 or 3 years and then we could start from scratch. Back to the stone age but still alive.

12. Modern Robotics

This is only a minor advantage but I will use it. Many people argue that since we sleep and they don't we are defenceless at night. ( apparently they forget that we can have day shifts and night shifts ). We do have sentry turrets, motion censor alarms, and proximity mines. We even have mobile drones that can patrol perimeters armed with a machine gun turret. No matter how hard a zombie tries it is going to hurt a sentry gun with its teeth.


While zombies are resistant to pain, extream cold would still cause a zombies body to fall apart due to frost bite, and even internal freezing of muscles and the brain as time goes on. Zombies don't have our advantage of internal heating due to the fact that they are dead. Their blood isn't going to help them during extream hot or cold temperature. We also have populations living on mountains or oil rigs. The's locations would prove impossible for a zombie to reach without being noticed. A zombie wouldn't last a day in Siberia or the northwest territories. extreme heat found in deserts would also harm or kill zombies due to the heightened rate of decomposition there.

14. Terrorists and extreamists

As evil as it is it might help save us. Some movement would start up somewhere and some psychopaths would start executing everyone who so much as coughs. Some dictatorial regimes might go as far as locking up citizens who look pale. Human fear and paranoia would drive them to extream caution and sadly violence.


Good evening, and thank-you for the timely response. Sorry for my terribly slow response, unfortunately duty called on a debate outside this website.


War lords and the like are criminals. I think they would be out for themselves, and they wouldn't actually help organized governments in the fight. Also, we see time and time again that criminals are stupid, and I therefore believe they would actually make things worse, through games and other atrocities they might commit.


Britain is such a liberal country that I don't think it is possible for them to send out an armed SWAT on time, but I don't think that patient zero would be in England either. Besides, we are talking about an APOCALYPSE which according to is "any universal or widespread destruction or disaster:" (1) A country with little to no guns, or people trained with guns wouldn't survive.

I think I will leave your points and go onto mine, while generalizing yours.

People of,

It is simple. Humans wouldn't survive universal or widespread destruction. Granted, there may be few survivors such as the rich or heads of state, but is that really human survival? Would you consider 6 or 7 BILLION deaths to be victory? What about the aftermath, when people run out of food? What about radiation and nuclear winter? My opponent has made it quite clear that nuclear weapons would be used in an apocalypse, and I don't think for one second natural disasters wouldn't also happen as a result of those nukes. I think that the whole planet would be a wasteland at this point in time.

Also, my opponent mentions terrorists. But would they not USE zombies against us? I think if the IRA makes a bomb out of nails, they or other terrorist groups would happily drop or secretly transport a bunch of zombies to any of the small and virtually desolate survival areas around the globe. And they are stupid, so they would probably end up getting infected by the zombies too!

Simply put, the walking dead wouldn't happen. Paranoia, selfishness, and lack of weaponry (thanks politics) would sadly drive the world apart. But at least we know it can be prevented. Why? Because they don't exist, so the question in itself is actually pointless.

I meant no offense in my statements.

Debate Round No. 2



I would like to clarify with everyone that while yes zombies do not exits as my opponent has mentioned we are talking about a situation in which such a virus was made to exist ( you can be imaginative as to how that happened ). There is good reason that this is located in the Entertainment section. This is merely a debate in which we investigate real world defences and fiction zombie viruses.

1. True, warlords and those like them are very much criminal and would be unlikely to directly assist the government forces. But as you said they would be in it for themselves. This means they would still fight and defend " their territory " ( or at least land the believe is theirs ). Many third world towns and villages are patroled and even used as bases by armed militias and rebel forces who are likely to act as an immediate response to an outbreak. most of these militants answer to phycopaths who would have them tortured and killed for abandoning territory. This means that the fear found there would ultimately cancel out the fear of zombies. Also don't rule out cooperation. In WW2 the communist rebels in China actually cooperated with government troops to fight of the Japanese. When people are desperate they will do anything to save themselves. Even work with those they hate.

2. I encourage everyone to look for further information on these subjects. Even typing something as simple as " London police armed response " will shoe you that the country is well capable of heavily arming even standard street cops on a moments notice if an encounter turns lethal. There are few nations in which their is no immediate armed response and the majority of these have a quick armed response that follows by around 5 minutes. The probability of patient 0 being located in this area is very low.

Thank you for stating the definition of apocalypse. However I stated quit clearly the origins of a typical apocalypse in the first round and this means that before becoming a full blown apocalypse it must start with 1 infected patient and spread from person to person. It is most probable that it would start in a location with some form of armed response due to the population and transportation in and out. There is even a chance that it could ( rather typically ) begin in a government reserch facility. In that case ( unlike in the movies ) governments would have security forces on hand immediately. While yes it would be difficult ( not impossible ) to stop the apocalypse in its full blown state, it would not be that difficult for most countries to crush the outbreak before it even begin. The apocalypse dosent even need to reach that point for us to survive it.

To continue I will restate many arguments that I have made that were not adressed so that everyone reading can see what is still keeping us alive.

3. Modern Militaries

The Military responses are likely to end an apocalypse if millions are infected. Simply flying helicopters with mounted gunners on the side over cities would do the trick. The zombies can't even fight back against an airforce. Napalm strikes would reduce them to dust ( as we see when the zombies in the pits in " the walking dead " are burnt ). No zombie is going to destroy a tank in a confrontation so it is quite likely that a large swarm of APC's could easily sweep up and down roads and highways killing thousands of infected.

4. CDC and WHO

They are still a factor and could produce a successful vaccine or even find something else ( as we see in World War Z when the WHO produces a camouflage that causes humans to be invisible to the zombies ). If militaries and WHO were successfully combating the World War Z virus ( which is much more powerful than the typical zombie apocalypse ) then it should be a walk in the park eliminating the slow dumb zombies.

5. We still have outer space as an existing future factor

6. The doomsday bunkers

We have established that these bunkers would be the means for human survival. While yes billions would likely die, the families evacuated to these bunkers would not. Attached is a link to the definition of " extinct "

Extinct means not in existence. Even even one person survives and there are no zombies left then we have survived the zombie apocalypse as a whole ( though upon that persons death we would be extinct ). However whole families would enter these bunkers ( the families of the heads of state ) and as such humanity would reproduce and start all over again in building civilizations ( as we always have ) if we had a male velociraptor and a female velociraptor in a zoo somewhere the species wouldnt be considered extinct and we would say that it survived the ( what was pretty much ) the prehistoric apocalypse.

I encourage everyone reading ( weather you believe or not ) to think about Adam and Eve. This shows that all we need to rise again is 1 man and 1 woman. From 2 people can come ( as we have now ) nearly 8 billion. As my opponent said there would be mass devestation ( and if it made it that far ), billions might die. But from the survivors would come billions more.

like I said it would not take long for the zombies to decompose. I placed a link and more information about Decompossure of zombies in the comments. of course TV shows and movies don't show the true rapid decomposition of zombies. If they showed that then the movie would be quite boring because the zombies would all be dead withing 3-4 weeks. Humanity would easily survive but if a movie showed that then it would be a pretty boring movie. Here in the real world however decomposition is a natural occur acne and would still take place. Even if the apocalypse reached its full fledged state it would only be like that for a week or two before everything returned to normal.

My opponent also failed to disprove ( my apologies if that sounds rude ) my theory that some major cities would be massively walled off and no zombie would be capable of entry. These walls would only have a couple entrenched and these would be heavily guarded by military troops. Anyone atempting entry would have to submit to CDC or WHO medical testing to ensure that they are not infected. ( for those who have watched world war z, if you remember the wall built around Jerusalem then you know that a typical zombie wouldn't be able to scale it ).

My opponent is correct in saying that some terrorist organizations would attempt to involve zombies in their attacks but many of these attacks would likely be thwarted and many terrorist groups might not even attempt this. It probably would not be the first think coming to mind for them when a zombie attempts to eat them to capture it. They would probably think more along the lines of " Shoot! "

Isolated island nations and micronations also remain in play. As do countries like North Korea With huge military fortified borders and very few people ever entering.

There are many more of my arguments that have not been successfully put down as well. I encourage readers to reach read my arguments from round 2 and think these through.

My oponent has agreed that there would likely be at least a few survivors. In the last round my opponent adressed you and said " would you consider 6 or 7 billion deaths to be victory ". Here is my response for all of you. I would considered 1 or 2 billion survivors to be victory, yes. If we lose 6-7 billion then we have aproximatly 1-2 billion people left. Those people can rebuild and repopulate. If the survival of 2 people is all we need then 2 billion is a huge added bonus. With 2 billion survivors we might not even have to revert to the stone age.

So, that my opponent agreed that there would be a number of human survivors and given that many of my arguments still stand, it is resonance to say that humanity would survive ( keyword survive, I never said there wouldn't be huge losses ) a zombie apocalypse.

Thank you for your arguments thus far and your respectful nature. My apoligise for my slow response time.

Vote Pro


Hi again,

1. I don't think warlords would actually defend their territory by killing zombies. Seriously, those people I guarantee would use zombies and their stupidity would kill themselves and people around them. In WWII, sure the Commies and the Nationalists teamed up, but if you remember they didn't actually work together, they just didn't kill each other.

2. If the government/police was capable of this, then zombie apocalypse that we see on TV wouldn't happen. And also, the fact that you say a few hours makes my argument stronger, because if you do the math and every 30 seconds a new person gets infected, it goes 1-2-4-8-16-32-64 in less then 5 minutes.

3. If you see how hard zombies are to kill, then you will know that a couple of helicopters won't do the trick. Also, how will there be pilots if they're all zombies? You are guaranteeing to me that militaries won't collapse. They are trying to evacuate citizens and enforce martial law, and they simply wouldn't have time to do anything. And if there are a 100 zs that converge on a tank they can easily hold it until say... thousands of zombies get there are they starve the people inside.

4. No, CDC and WHO wouldn't work. Did you see how lucky those people were to even survive getting the vaccines? Imagine how many there would be in the CDC Georgia. If we can't produce vaccines that are effective for things such as Ebola, then we can't possibly develop a zombie vaccine.

5. We don't have outer space. Humans won't get to Mars until 2024 and I don't think that we will go to the moon. It is to expensive and sucks money away from the actual war effort.

Doomsday Bunk
6. As previously mentioned, these won't work. Why? Simply because of what I said last time: humans will need to come out and will not survive the zombie hoard awaiting.

If it takes 5 years of resources before you need to come out, how many zombies will arrive vs how many new deaths. And we are assuming there is no outbreak inside the bunker!

8 billion people happened over 6000 years according to Adam and Eve's story. I don't think you'd see reproduction on such a massive scale, when there would be fear that people you do it with have the virus themselves!

And no, zombies don't just decompose because there is no reason for them to do so. If you're saying they decompose, then it wouldn't be the 'typical' apocalypse, would it? And the horde of refugees would prevent checks for the virus, and normally in these typical situations everyone has it, and when they die they become a zombie.

I don't agree with the terrorist arguments or the wall argument for many reasons. First off, it takes years to build walls in major cities such as Shanghai and New York, and also there would be much opposition because it would take taxpayer dollars and a lot of people wouldn't see a threat of Zombies. Also, I don't think that terrorists would just blindly shoot zombies. Do you see them do that to their enemies? No, they capture them.

Islands can be in play but seeing the chaos on the mainland and the military collapse how will people get there? And how would tens of millions of Chinese zombies not go to North Korea?

There are 7.3 billion people on earth, according to I think it is clear that most of them would in fact die in this apocalypse, and the survivors would be killed off, seeing as most babies would die early on.

My opponent has answered most of his own points, and basically stated I'm correct about virtually all his arguments, and since he has given himself BoP, I think he hasn't really proven anything as we see that so many things can go wrong in warfare, especially against zombies. Therefore, a Zombie apocalypse would be terrible, and humans would definitely not survive.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3


I will begin by saying that my opponent has presented many good arguments. However I can still defend several off mine. Also a warning. Some of my arguments are in all caps or followed by exclamation points. This is not to show frustration or anger towards my opponent. I have added those as a way of showing keys words or quotes.

1. Walls.

in The Walking Dead we see a small block in Woodbury get walled off by civilians. The "wall" was composed of overturned buses and trailers and wooden structures. It was around 1 story in height. That is a very small, flimsy wall. Yet it held out against the zombies for around a year before a group of other humans breached it with weapons and explosives. If that wall could hold then a Government built superstructure certainly could. Would it be expensive, yes it would. However taxpayers are likely to feel the need for it over other municipal expenses. For example, a city spend millions building a sports stadium. Those millions could easily be put towards walls and citizens would show much higher demand for them.

2. Military

Helicopters are actually very efficient. a trained soldier on a helicopter mounted gun could easily kill hundreds of zombies in 1 circle around an area. MG's fire off huge amounts of powerful ammunition and are extreamly powerful. If even one of those bullets scores a head shot then you have a dead zombie. Missile systems and bombing raids also provide quick and easy methods of killing hundreds of zombies in 1 go around. Tanks would also not be st oped in their tracks by a mere hundred zombies. A tank can ride over and crush several cars at once. Those are metal machines designed to withstand damage. A zombie is a chunk of brittal flesh and melting organs. A tank would roll right over that. The Navy would also provide that huge sea going edge that zombies just can't match.

3. Island NATIONS

I am not talking about some empty island somewhere. I'm talking about small island nations and micronations that are capable of self sustaining. These islands already have a population and will likely shut down their ports ( if they even have more than 1 ) the moment things get bad. for an example of a large island nation I will use Cuba. Cuba is a nation with a decent standing army and a huge amount of guns. It is also known for being extreamly cautious with diseases. Cuba sent 100's of doctors to west Africa to aid with ebola. They told these doctors that before they even got on a plane they would be compleatly searched physical and medically for traces of ebola. If the official serving even suspected they had ebola then the Nation of Cuba would not allow them to come home ( ever! ). Nobody would be getting to a place like this. Human paranoia would cause for massive airport and seaport closure and even land border fortifications.

4. Doomsday Bunkers.

Who is going to go into a doomsday bunker other than the head of state, his/her family, and select special forces units. Nobody with a bite would ever make it through clearance and as such the inside of the bunker wouldn't be infected. The bunkers are stocked with enough food and water and medicine to allow it's occupants to survive for a very large number of years. Decompossure ( even on a typical movie zombie ) would have been completed by this point. It would at least be in its final phase ( the one where the zombie is basically a pile of guts on the floor that groans alittle). I used the walking dead as my example of a typical zombie type ( besides the part where everyone is infected that isn't typical ).
as I have shown with the link provided in the comments even the Walking Dead has had its zombies show decomposition. It is natural for something dead and without a functioning circulatory system to rot away. In TWD we see around 1 or 2 years go bye and already the zombies appear weaker and have lost most of their outer organs, skin, and much of their muscles. That is only a fraction of the time that people would last in doomsday bunkers.

5. Virus spread

I already established in the rules set out in round 1 that a typical zombie apocalypse involves infection by way of BITE ONLY! This means that sexual relations, bodily fluid contact, inhalation and other forms of contamination do not spread the virus. Reproduction would not be impared due to the virus because reproduction can't spread it. Also it appears as though you believe it takes days before symptoms are obvious. Typicaly it only takes hours. CDC and WHO would at least warn the public about that fact.

6. Adam and Eve repeat

As stated above reproduction dosent stop due to the virus. You are right in saying that it took thousands of years to populate the earth on that scale. That is fine. We did it once we can do it again. Plus it is likely that more than 2 people will make it. It dosent matter how long it takes. All that matters is that when the Zombie population drops to 0 we have a population of at least 1. Humanity ( unlike zombies ) adapt quickly to new problems and either eliminate or avoid them. Eventually Zombies would die off or even starve to the point of immobility ( yes a zombie gets hungry and can starve, as is stated in several movies and books ).

If you mean to tell me that we can't save at least 1 man and 1 woman for a period of 3-4 years then you are sitting on a probability that is very, very small. Humanity has endured before and we can very well do it again.

7. North Korea ( again )

I'm certain that millions of zombies would eventually start moving towards north korea. However I will list several defences and deterents that would stop this from being fatal.

1. China and North Korea are conceded mainly by bridges. Kim Jong Un would likely order those destroyed at the first sign of a zombie herd.

2. The Wall. Following the bridges are two walls one in front of the other. These are a decent height and are rather sturdy. They are manned by sniper towers, arillery guns, pillboxs, and patrols thousands strong. Soldiers would pick them off quite easily as zombies don't follow strategy and are not stealthy whatsoever.

3. China has fallen. in the event you are proposing china would have likely fallen. North Korea would be left with no reason not to drop nukes on bejing and other major cities just to kill the zombies there. The Chinese east coast ( where all those people are ) would likely become a nuclear wasteland. NK don't really care about collateral damage.

8. Reconsider my round 2 arguments about weather and terrain

9. Other notes:

I would like to now point out how my opponent said there are 7.3 billion people and " MOST of them would in fact die". Again you stand against yourself. All I said was that humanity would survive. Most of them dying means that some of the lived. If even 2 people live than mankind survived. My argument is that a zombie apocalypse ( if it happened ) wouldn't result in humanities extinction.

BTW, the things my opponent said about police and what the government is capable of, almost certainly incorrect. most governments could end the apocalypse before it ever escaped 1 city. All the TV and Movie apocalypses would be pretty boring if the police killed all the zombies in episode 1 though wouldn't they. Governments can respond properly, but for the sake of good television, Hollywood dosent show it on TV.

Also it is highly doubtful that someone would be infected very 30 seconds at the patient zero or police stages. A typical zombie ( as I said ) walks ànd can only move at jogging pace ( at its fastest ). Humans can run. The second people see 1 or 2 crazy guys covered in blood trying to chase people they will scream, run and call the police. As I said it could all be over before it has a chance to begin.

Some nations have so many guns that zombies would have problmes lasting long there. In the US there are 9 guns for very 10 people. That's alot of guns.
in north korea, nearly 1/3 of people are armed military soldiers who are trained in weapons use ( it's sounds crazy but it's true ). In those places citizens would probably arm themselves quickly in defence of their families and property.

Remember everyone. Only 2 people need to survive this and they only need to last 3-4 years At the most. I believe this proves my point that mankind would survive.

Vote Pro!


I will continue to selectively destroy each argument, with respect.

1. Walls
They simply won't work. How long do you expect to build walls, and what is the point if there are already zombies? Perhaps Woodbury style cities would work but eventually the would collapse, most likely by other survivors.

Like I previously said, who do you expect to control these? Currently, under the U.S constitution I don't think you can just have tanks rolling around the country. Also, wouldn't those soldiers be in the middle east or with their families? Getting to the bases would be a logistical nightmare, and they just couldn't do it.

Many small islands aren't self sustaining and need outside help, 'nuff said. Cuba will be flooded with refugees, and the military wouldn't be able to kill them all. Again, it takes only one idiot to cause a complete nightmare.

Again, these won't work. In a 'typical' apocalypse (definition: there wouldn't be decompossure. Also, theres no scientific evidence that zombies would basically vanish. Also, again bunkers wouldn't be self sustaining for long, especially as more refugees get in. And someone with a bite WILL get in, because nobody will just allow hundreds of thousands of starving people to sit outside a safe zone.

CDC and WHO won't have a vaccine on time, simple as that. We can't even develop proper flu vaccines, or ebola vaccines, much less zombie ones. Also, in the typical apocalypse when someone dies they have the disease, and obviously by bite they will get it to someone else, otherwise how would the infection start in the first place?

2 people left would cause... incest by their offspring and they would die, simple as that. And what makes you think they would be together? Or that they are man and woman?

I think in the event of a nuclear war, which would happen, the U.S would launch at Pyongyang and the floodgates would open. Anyone who survives would be killed by radiation. True, Beijing would be destroyed, and you also don't have proof that the North has nukes at this time.

For my last part, I think that by definition of apocalypse, it isn't a good argument to say the zombies would be immediately killed as that wouldn't be an apocalypse. Police wouldn't even respond quickly, seeing that they would probably be helping the citizens who are panicking.

I agree that the human survival instinct is great, but what about nukes, radiation, and disasters that come as a result of war? You haven't mentioned those.

Also, the 2 people argument requires... incest eventually and the child would probably not even survive birth because there wouldn't be any medical equipment and the women would probably be incredibly unhealthy. And that is only if it is a man and a woman!
Debate Round No. 4


1. In the event that only 1 man and woman were left to reproduce you are correct in saying that there would be incest. However ( going on the Adam and Eve again ) that would have been how it happened to start with anyway. Is it disgusting, yes! But if it was necessary for the species survival im sure it would be done.

2. Doomsday Bunkers.

Protocol states that the nation's head of state, his or her family and a select group of guards and officials are the only ones allowed inside. In the US, the secret service would never allow anybody to enter the bunker without being one of those people. In North Korea, I highly doubt that Kim Jong Un would risk his own safety to allow any of his citizens safe harbour. Refugees would likely be headed into less secure, military protected bunkers. Many of those would be infected. Others may not be. The doomsday bunkers however would remain secure.

3. North Korea.

The North has an arsenal of aproximatly 20 nuclear weapons that have been confirmed by international sources. There may be more we don't know about.
By the time the apocalypse reaches such a point that the north is firing nukes at ( what used to be ) China then I'm sure the US would have bigger concerns. America would likely not care ( as most of if not all of, the population in the nuclear targets would be dead ) and would be to busy within there own borders.

4. Walls

I still believe that in the early outbreak stages ( while the infection is major in only certain parts of the world ) that some cities would take precautions and would be walled off before the apocalypse began to directly effect them. These walled off cities would likely be few in number but they would probably maintain sizable populations and would be heavily policed. Populations in these cities would number in the thousands ( potentially millions in the case of cities like LA, Shanghai, Berlin, Tehran or other massive population centers ). This would be enough survivors for us to live on.

5. Decompossure

It is a natural occurrence. While yes, Typical zombies decompose at a far slower rate then humans they still decompose. Everyone decomposes once their blood stops flowing properly. This is a law of nature. It does not matter if it takes ( the typical ) few years before a zombie decomposes fully because it will still decompose. That means that 3 or 4 years after it all began it would be over. Only a few stragglers would remain ( zombies I mean ) because there would have been some idiots who were infected late. The walled off cities and the doomsday bunker survivors ( and any other bunker groups, survivor groups or island groups ) would be left alive and free to head put for supply gathering. Humanity would be bumped down significantly in population, technology, and even land but we would live on.

6. Islands

Very few people even know that some of these island micronations exist. Refugees would flood towards Iceland, new Zealand and other better known islands. Locations with populations of only 20 or so people wouldnt even be affected. Many of these are primitive and live off of their own crops and wildlife with little to no outside support or contact. This means more survivors that could keep us going a few years after the outbreak.

7. Patient Zero

As I stated in my first round establishment of the typical zombie apocalypse, it all starts with one zombie ( how patient zero came to be infected is something you can be imaginative about. ). I also established the typical bite only infection rule. It is not typical for everyone to be infected in such a way that they turn after death. If that were typical it wouldnot have shocked Walking Dead fans as much as it did.
Givin that there must be a patient zero start point Police and Local Militia operations remain in play as a potential means to survive.

8. Idiots

Here I actually agree with my opponent. There are alot of idiots in the world. Luckily for us though idiots tend to be the first to die due to the fact that they are, well, idiots! If someone is stupid enough to try a catch a zombie they are probably stupid enough to get bit trying. There probably won't be enough of the foolish people left that they could ruin our survival odds. My apologies for the frequent use of the word idiot however I wished to use the same wording as my opponent to keep everything consistent.

9. The Military. Bases require an active national defence ready team. These soldiers are on base with these aircraft, tanks and weapons 24 hours a day. They would act as immediate military response. Many city have an airbase within a proximity that allows for air force response in 10-20 minutes.

10. Simple fact.

It is nearly impossible to eliminate an entire species ( aspecialy a plant wide, technological advanced, adaptive, intelligent one ). The dinosaurs didn't all die in a day. Infact many species survived the prehistoric extinction events. Those were planetary, inascapable, events far more powerful than a few nuclear bombs. The survivors were mammals, fish, birds and other dim witted animals. Imagine how much better we could have done. A zombie apocalypse is no contest to the prehistoric extinction events. If some animals could survive the poisonus air, dark ash filled skies and lack of most plant life we can definitely survive some rotting corpses with pea sized brains.

People of

I urge you to stand with your species and it's ability to live on. We are strong, smart and a force to be reckoned with. Zombies are slow, dumb, physically fragile, and purely instinctive creatures. Their only advantage is that you have to hit them in the head to kill them. We beat them any day of the week. There would be survivors and those survivors would rebuild.

I would like to thank my opponent for a great and respectful debate. This proved a good experience and it is my belief that both sides had valid arguments.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this and vote.

Vote Pro!


Alright, seeing as this is the last round, I didn't see a point for my opponent to continue to remind us of why humans would survive the zombie apocalypse. However, rather then repeating all of my rebuttals, I will simply just dig into his closing part.

"I urge you to stand with your species and it's ability to live on. We are strong, smart and a force to be reckoned with. Zombies are slow, dumb, physically fragile, and purely instinctive creatures. Their only advantage is that you have to hit them in the head to kill them. We beat them any day of the week. There would be survivors and those survivors would rebuild. "

>>No, humans are the cause of many problems around the world. Every war, every crime, and every nuclear weapon has been caused or made by the human race. I urge everyone to realize this. By definition, an apocalypse isn't one zombie that can essentially easily get it's butt kicked. We here are talking about hundreds of millions or even a billion zombies, just so it fits in as an apocalypse. The war would be terrible, and if things such as nuclear weapons are used, imagine the impact on humanity, through radiation or some sort of volcanic winter. Imagine the chaos on the streets, as one by one humans are slaughtered by zombies, and yes, fellow humans for food and water. The same stuff that is being poisoned.

Imagine 5 years later, when the heads of state have to come out of their shells, and that is IF they even got there. Imagine what will be waiting for them. The simple case is, humans will starve and there is no way that with the use of nuclear weapons, and other forms of heavy arms that we will survive as a species. Although we have always gotten through trouble, that would surely be the end of it all.

Also, for the record typical zombies aren't killed with a bonk to the head. It takes guns, and in many countries that will be very hard to get. I would like to thank my opponent, however I think seeing he destroyed his own arguments by not using definitions correctly, Con should be the clear winner.

Thanks you all.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Russia_The_almighty 1 year ago
RFD: Wow.... Just wow. This was a very good debate and I can see both sides thought this out very well. However there can be only one winner. S&G both made a few errors so tied there. Sources. Neither had any sources in their arguments besides that dictionary entry so tied there. Conduct. Neither side forfeited and were very respectful. Arguments. You two blew me away with your arguments. Both of you showed how humans would or would not survive the zombie apocalypse. Just to give a few examples. As pro said a flimsy wall of buses in the walking dead held out a year against zombies until other humans blew it up while pro said how third world countries likely would only make things worse instead of helping. However, I got to give the argument point to pro. Con tried to say that if 6-7 billion die would that be a victory. While pro responded saying that while billions may die, the survivors will become billions more. He also showed that based on Adam and Eve that if that could happen, then we could survive. Along with that he said that if there is even one human alive, and there are no more zombies then that would mean we survived the zombie apocalypse. Because of those statements, I have to give the argument point to pro.
Posted by debate_power 1 year ago
Zombies would be the easiest thing to defeat. A pathogen would not.
Posted by gherkin 1 year ago
This debate is coming along quite well and you both have come up with some great topics. Even I'm having trouble deciding who to choose once the debate ends.
Posted by emporer1 1 year ago
I'm adding this after having writen my arguments for round 2. Zombie decomposition is disused as being slightly longer than humans, as quick as 1 month. It takes around half a month for a human brain to rot to nothing so add a few months and zombies are gone. This is due to the fact that while zombies have basic motor and brain functions they are dead and their blood isn't pumping. even AMC's Walking Dead have gone through Decompossure across seasons. For more information search zombie Decompossure on Google search and read a bit about it and why movies don't tend to show it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lumberjay85 1 year ago
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: Pro's arguments were much stronger. While neither side cited any sources, save for one dictionary definition, Pro's argument showed signs of thorough research, whereas Con's seemed more like his own perceptions.