The Instigator
LiquidNazgul
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Slow zombies are scarier than fast zombies.

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: 4/19/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,811 times Debate No: 11805
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

LiquidNazgul

Pro

I look forward to the debate that has raged since mankind's forerunners were crawling out of the oceans.

To begin, we must define what a slow zombie is and a fast zombie is.

SLOW ZOMBIES are usually:
-Slow
-Dumb
-Nearly indestructible
-Possesses in-human strengths
-Possesses super-senses
-Requires headshots to kill

FAST ZOMBIES ARE usually:
-Faster than you
-Agile
-More dexterous
-Easier to kill

However, there have been exceptions for both sides. For example, slow zombies in some games/movies can be killed by any body shot. Fast zombies, which are usually just diseased people, as opposed to undead, are easier to kill because they can die in any way a human can. However, the fast zombies from Dawn of the Dead are both undead AND fast.

My argument for slow zombies being more scarier is that they possess a sense of creeping death, as opposed to the in-your-face moments you always experience with fast zombies.

With fast zombies, you only have seconds to realize just how screwed you are and the you die. With slow zombies you can have days, months to think up of all the gory ways you can die. It's the difference between skydiving and scuba diving; the difference between someone popping up in your face and screaming and hearing ominous sounds all around you, slowly closing in.

Sprinters are also much easier to kill than shamblers are, if we are going by the assumption that they are merely infected people than actual undead (and, with few exceptions, they usually are just diseased people). You don't need headshots to kill them. A few shots anywhere will kill them: starvation, hunger, disease (unless the zombie virus somehow kills other diseases), all of those will be factors for sprinters. For shamblers, they do not require food, or water, or oxygen (if we are, again, going by the traditional, mainstream shamblers such as in the Zombie Survival Guide or Resident Evil).

Cheap thrills can be enjoyed when they can, but I argue that it is much more effective when the fear builds up over time, and the tension eventually explodes somewhere down the road, a sense of anxiety and dread as opposed to shaky camera angles and a bunch of explosions. Given the modern attention span to movies these days, it's quite a shame to see the "creeping death" concept given away to constant, non-stop, fast-paced action that leaves little in the way of story or building up any sense of fear.

Fast zombies definitely have their place: you always need to spice up a genre or else it will get stale. If all people used in movies and games were shamblers it would eventually get boring. Also, with shambler movies, there is a lot more character development between the cast. In sprinter movies it's pretty rare to see anything of the Zombieland was quite good at this: balancing development of the characters with fighting the flesh-eating cannibals all around them.

But it lacked any horror, any building fear about it. One can argue that it was a comedy, and it indeed was: but the directors wished to mix comedy with horror, and I saw almost none of the ladder.
Korashk

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate and apologize for not posting my argument yesterday. I accidentally fell asleep after school and didn't wake up until it was time to go to school the next day.

~~~~~~~~~
Clarifications
~~~~~~~~~

///
SLOW ZOMBIES are usually:
-Nearly indestructible
-Possesses in-human strengths

FAST ZOMBIES ARE usually:
-Faster than you
///

I did some research and found what I believe is a fairly good description of different zombie canons [1]. None of them are described as having these attributes with the exception of Marvel Zombies, which really isn't a topic that should be addressed in this debate. It would be best if my opponent were to cite where he got this information. My source also only states that fast zombies have human-like speed, which means that they could outrun some, but some could outrun them.

To keep the debate fair I will post my rebuttals to your arguments in the last round to give us each 1 rebuttal.
~

~~~~~~~
Argument
~~~~~~~

Fast Zombies are scarier than slow Zombies for one reason. Slow Zombies almost universally have sub-human intelligence, whereas many types of fast zombies have intelligence that is classified as human-like. With slow zombies the only thing you have to fear is if they catch you by surprise. If you are competent this is likely to be a rare occurrence because it is easy to set up your basic perimeter alarm using string and aluminum cans which when tripped alerts you to movement. You should have a weapon at hand to easily dispatch these slow moving foes. Slow zombies are even less scary when you do the smart thing and keep to open areas. Fast zombies would be able to catch you/beat this system using their human-like intelligence. It is for this reason that fast zombies are scarier than slow zombies

[1] http://sites.dehumanizer.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LiquidNazgul

Pro

Not going to really rebut anything. I just urge voters to vote for whichever side you prefer, sprinters or shamblers.
Korashk

Con

In lieu of my opponent's unfortunate personal issues I will also not post any rebuttals. I believe that my contention is enough to negate the resolution and prove my case. Although I do not think that the voters should vote based on their preference. They should vote objectively in accordance to whom they believe earned the points.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Yes, I came home from school, sat down on the couch-form furon that I also sleep on, laid down, turned the tv on and the next thing I knew my alarm went off for school the next day.
Posted by link100 7 years ago
link100
fell asleep huh? LMAO!!!!!!!!!
Posted by LiquidNazgul 7 years ago
LiquidNazgul
I'm going to just have to go out right now and say I should have only done one round. There's not much I can rebut with, both sides have given their facts.

By all means take this round to elaborate on your points, but I'm going to drop it. Too much going on domestically :S
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Unfortunately I do not have access to a proper computer at the moment and will have to postpone posting my argument until tommorow. I apologize in advance.
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
I think Teamliquid is scarier than DDO.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by DebatePro 7 years ago
DebatePro
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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 dankeyes11 7 years ago
dankeyes11
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by xxdarkxx 7 years ago
xxdarkxx
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sidobagga 7 years ago
sidobagga
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
LiquidNazgulKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05