The Instigator
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,663 times Debate No: 37076
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

tylergraham95

Pro

First round is acceptance only.
Zombies are defined for the sake of this debate as ghoulish bodies of humans who have been reanimated after death by a virus, magic, etc. that typically attempt to bite humans in order to spread their plague or eat the brains of the human.
Examples of slow moving zombies are "Max Brooks" Zombies. The zombies in Shaun of the Dead.
Examples of fast moving zombies include Zombies from 28 days later and The World War Z movie.
The purpose of this discussion is to debate whether or not "Slow moving" zombies are more realistic than "fast moving" zombies.
Realistic is defined as:
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
or
representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.
I look forward to a challenger.
Duncan

Con

I accept your challenge, and would also like to extend a hand of welcome to Debate.org, where i hope we will enjoy many debates together. Let's Go!

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 1
tylergraham95

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting my challenge.

First I will talk about thermodynamics and energy regarding both categories of zombies. Then I will move on to address biological limitations of infectious disease and a rotting human body. Finally I will point out that sedentary lifestyle is more closely aligned to human illness and more beneficial for a zombie's survival.

I'll begin by addressing my contention regarding thermodynamics and relate it to this debate. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system (such as the universe) energy is constant. This is more colloquially referred to as the law of conservation of energy. Now in the case of fast moving zombies, they are unrealistic with regard to this law in the fact that moving at such high speed would require some kind of energy. All known life in the animal kingdom consume some type of chemical energy to power locomotion and other bodily functions. A zombie however consumes no chemical energy and therefore does not have any way to power its locomotion. One might argue that zombies eat brains for chemical energy, but if this were true the zombie virus (or other infection) would never spread due to the lack of available hosts. In theory a human body can decompose itself as a source of chemical energy, but this is illogical and will explain why in my next contention.

My second contention regards the biological side of a zombie, which is the reanimated corpse of a human. A zombie (since it is still a rotting corpse) would likely have failing ligaments and skeletal structure, which would not allow for such high speeds on foot. This is supported by the phenomena of sprained and damaged bones/ligaments (especially in those of failing health [i.e. the walking dead]). Weakened and failing joints, ligaments, bones, etc. would totally fail if a zombie attempted to move at the speeds depicted in movies such as World War Z. This also supports my previous argument that self atrophy for the sake of chemical energy is illogical, due to the fact that self atrophy would only further accelerate the failing of zombie locomotive ability.

My third contention regards both of my previous arguments. I would contend that, in usual infectious disease situations, sedentary lifestyle is more closely aligned with what is typical of human nature. When one is sick with the flu they do not run around at full speed, because they are sick, typically lack chemical energy, and therefore cannot move as fast as they normally could. This is true for zombies as well seeing as most zombie experts point to infectious disease as the source of the rising of the undead.

Take the fast moving zombies in World War Z for example. They are infected with a bite that rapidly turns them into ghoul capable of superhuman strength and superhuman speeds. Not one of them consumes any form of chemical energy to power these extreme processes. Clearly the infection is some kind of pathogen, but there is no energy source to power their impressive feats of speed and strength. This clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore after a few days or weeks of failing health (due to many factors such as the weather, lack of chemical energy to maintain the body, etc.) they can still exhibit such amazing feats.

The "Max Brooks" zombie (described in his book The Zombie Survival Guide) however moves slowly and therefore requires much less chemical energy. Sedentary lifestyle zombies would allow them to preserve the chemical energy that remains in their bodies and wait for food to come near. That is why the "Max Brooks Zombie" waits for some type of signal to attack such as noise. This virus could spread in a more realistic manner due to the zombies only occasionally needing to feed on a human due to the low energy efficient lifestyles that they lead. This would allow for a more successful outbreak and would therefore be beneficial to the zombie virus and therefore more realistic.

To reiterate, my main contentions are as follows: Fast moving zombies violate the second law of thermodynamics, Fast moving zombies are unrealistic with respect to a rotting human body, and slow moving zombies are more realistic with respect to typical human disease and energy efficiency.

I thank my partner for his time and eagerly await his response.
Duncan

Con

You misunderstand a crucial aspect of the fast moving zombies, or any zombies for that matter. You seem to treat zombies as their own species, a reasonable idea, but zombies in fact have their own hive mind of sorts. If zombies were all about self preservation, they would eat something other that the only food capable of using weapons; they're human bodies, still capable of digestion after all. However, I will use a different virus as my horde species; the Green Flu from Left 4 Dead. Apart from the special zombies who have developed mutations, the zombies are like people infected with a form of rabies, in fact, I could use the disease from the acclaimed spanish horror [Rec], which had people simply becoming violent and determined to spread the virus at all costs. Zombies have no self preservation, instead working for the good of the horde at large. A rabies like virus would fufill the cannibal nature of the zombie, while allowing them to run at high speeds, shortening their lifespans, You assume all zombies must be a reanimated corpse, but then use 28 days later as an example of a fast moving zombie.

I class zombies into two types, with sub types of their own. Undead and Infected. You suggest that Undead are more realistic, whereas i believe that an infectious virus has more scientific possibility. You cannot claim that the 28 Days Later zombies fall into your definition, as in 28 Days. the virus is portrayed as a rabies of sorts. The most powerful virus is the aforementioned Green Flu though, as it is not spread through bite, rather through air, the cannibal tendencies being a symptom that also assists the infected disarm the mask using military.

To try and disprove the idea of infected being zombies, you will have to show more than one film or game where reanimated corpses run quickly, else your argument is as flawed as saying that because elderly people move slowly, young people running violates the laws of physics. Undead and Infected are separate.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
tylergraham95

Pro

tylergraham95 forfeited this round.
Duncan

Con

I am unsure as to why my opponent has failed to reply, but I will remain in good faith that he has merely arrived late. If you're reading this, put your argument in the comments.
Debate Round No. 3
tylergraham95

Pro

tylergraham95 forfeited this round.
Duncan

Con

Perhaps this debate had too many rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
tylergraham95

Pro

I would like to lend a sincere apology to my opponent for my tardiness. During the weekend I failed to properly update my debate due to unexpected events. I extend the most profuse apology to my opponent for my own delay. Perhaps I put too many rounds of debate indeed!

I will finish this debate by refuting my opponents argument and defending my previous contentions.

I will start by addressing my opponents own personal method of classifying Zombies. Although this may be an interesting Zombie classification method, my opponent has no grounds on which to call himself an expert on Zombies and Zombification. Although I do appreciate the bringing up of the Left for Dead green flu as I do appreciate the Left for Dead series, I do not believe that this disease truly fits the established definition of Zombie. The Zombie definition as established by this debate clearly states that Zombies spread their infection by way of infectious bite. I would also like to address that 28 days later is an example that I am proving to be unrealistic.

If my opponent wishes to contend that these so called "Infected" are not Zombies as is being debated, he is simply agreeing with me. This is apparent because I am debating Slow Moving Zombies (the undead) as being more realistic than Fast Moving Zombies (yet again the undead). Furthermore I would contend that my opponents metaphor with aged people and young people does not apply in the sense that Zombies are deteriorating bodies not unlike the elderly. Would a man near death be likely to run as fast as a healthy young adult? I think not. Thus my decaying illness argument still holds true.

Furthermore my opponent has completely failed to address my argument regarding chemical energy, and the second law of thermodynamics.

Due to my opponents lack of ability to directly refute my argument, clearly the obvious vote is the affirmative vote.

I would like to thank my opponent for a wildly entertaining debate! This has been a very very fun and interesting debate to be introduced to the website with and I have nothing but appreciation for my opponent. I would also like to again deeply apologize for my own tardiness and missed arguments!
Duncan

Con

Your definition of zombies is incorrect. You have only taken into account the traditional slow moving zombies and forgotten a whole load of zombie films that do not involve undead. Undead are a wholly supernatural occurrence. To say that corpses brought back from the dead by magic is more realistic than a rabies strand infecting humans is a ridiculous conception. Even if you refuse to accept infected as true zombies, I call upon the necromorph, who move quickly and burn up unneeded flesh as bio fuel. They work under "ghoulish bodies of humans who have been reanimated after death by a virus, magic, etc. that typically attempt to bite humans in order to spread their plague or eat the brains of the human." and they move while destroying themselves because they work on a hive mind similar to the horde mind of regular zombies. Zombies decay anyway, they may as well use their last strength to throw themselves or run at living things, then hibernate when no target is in site. http://deadspace.wikia.com... .This is a science fiction style of zombie, which is a tad more realistic than your magic undead.

But whether or not you accept infected, the necromorphs will defy your undead magic any day of the week, and they have a proper explanation of their creation and behaviour, which can involve moving very quickly. This has been a fun debate and I'm glad you returned to it. I hope to debate with you again in the future.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
Unless you put fire under their a$$ that will gt them moving fast. lolz XD
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
if you re-do this and set it for 3 rounds, I may take it
No votes have been placed for this debate.