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

Solanum (the zombie virus as defined by max brooks' zombie survival guide.) victims should be killed

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  
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: 2/20/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,927 times Debate No: 30291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Solanum is an incurable virus that causes death and reanimation in those infected. Victims cannot be cured and should be killed as an act of mercy in order to keep them from turning into a homicidal killing machine known as a zombie in common tounge.
1st round acceptance
2-3rd rounds arguments and rebuttals
4th round closing statements


I accept under thr condition that 'victims' are defined as people who have been bitten but have not turned yet and killed is defined as murdered without the victims consent.

Debate Round No. 1


Solanum is an incurable virus that causes death and reanimation in those infected. There is no way to stop this eventuality. Victims should be killed humanely with or without consent. This worked to the Roman army, killing infected solders and civilians alike.1.
1) Max Brooks: The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead


I am a massive fan of the zombie sub-genre and will accept any zombie related debate with a winnable resolution. Jus' sayin'.

Now, with my definitions accepted in the comments section, I want to expand upon the resolution:

My opponent proposes that all victims of zombie bites should be killed, with or without their consent. In order to build a case against this resolution, I will be arguing that victims should be allowed to live their final 24 hours (page 3 of the Zombie Survival Guide lists the stages of infection with 24 hours being the time it takes for infection to claim the victim, give or take several hours) unless they choose to die before hand.

In order for the victim of a zombie bite to be known to the group, they must either progress to the point where infection takes obvious physical symptoms (around hour 8 according to the book), the victim was seen being bitten or the victim reveals the bite to the group.

In all of these scenarios, the victim is not a threat to the group as the infection is known. Unlike some zombie movies (28 days later for example, where the infection takes just seconds to turn a person into a mindlessly violent 'zombie') the book specifically lays out the infection process, where the victim becomes increasingly debilitated over several hours.

Also, I will be citing examples of other zombie movies (from which this book was obviously expired) as evidence for my arguments. My opponent may question the validity of it if he chooses.

So, without further ado...

Victims can still be useful to a group for several hours

I cite several examples of this:
Roger (Dawn of the Dead, 1978)
During the scene where Peter and Roger are blocking off the main entrances to the mall with trucks to better secure it, Roger is bitten on the arm before they complete the task. He is still able to help complete the task in his bitten state.

Michael (Dawn of the Dead, 2004)
During the escape scene at the end, Michael is bitten. He continues to help the group while bitten.

The point of these two examples is that the victim is not immediately dangerous and can still be helpful for potentially several hours after being bitten, before they succumb to full blown fever and paralysis.

Victims often want to end their own lives on their own terms
The above two examples fit this argument too, but I will add a further example...

Jim (Walking Dead comic and TV series)
Jim is an excellent example of what I was talking about above. He chose to his bite but the symptoms started to manifest and he was caught. Once known to the group, he was no longer a threat. Jim chooses to succumb to the infection, having the group leave him on the side of the road.

Victims are not necessarily done for once bitten.
Page 5 of the book cites severing a bitten limb as an effective method of stopping the fatal infection, albeit with only a 1/10 chance of survival.

Dale (Walking Dead comic) and Hershal (Walking Dead TV series) are examples of this.

“There is no way to stop this eventuality “

Incorrect. My third argument proposes an alternative to simply terminating victims. Given there is some known success, I am guessing a large majority of victims may choose to have their limbs severed and attempt to survive that, rather than be executed.

I will leave it at that for now. There is a major ethical question about murdering someone against their consent to bring up, but I'll focus on that next round. Over to you sir.

All sources will be refered to at the time they were cited. I'd like to ask my opponent to cite which exact page he is referring to in the book, rather than citing the whole thing as a source. I don't have time to search through 200+ pages to find the part he is talking about, although I have the book right here next to me.
Debate Round No. 2


"Once a person is infected, little can be done to save him or her." Page 4 ZSG
"Cases have been recorded where recently infected subjects, deceased by means other than the virus, will nonetheless reanimate. Such cases usually occur when the subject expires after the fifth hour of infection." Page 5 ZSG

These quotes from the Zombie Survival guide tell that infected persons are both doomed and already dead, people who have been infected are going to die, even though allowing the infected to live may help the group for a short time, this may lead the group to allow the infected to leave a zombie, giving another corpse to the undead army. I use Jim as an example of this, Jim was left to become a zombie, another member of the army of the demons known as the undead. There is a serious safety issue to allowing an infected person to walk among you, they have the virus in them, say a man hid he was bitten and he donated blood, infecting anyone who received his blood, he has just killed anyone who received his blood, he hid his infection and killed others with it.


My wifi modem is being a uncooperative, so I can't post this round.
Sorry dude.
Debate Round No. 3


Dovahkiin117 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
I was sick I gotta redo this
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
I gt flu 5 days ago
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
Only a few hrs.
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
I need to wait until I get home to do this next round.
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
Ok your definitions
Posted by tvellalott 4 years ago
Look, the problem here is that if we use that definition I'm fighting an uphill battle. If we use my definition at least I have a fighting chance. I don't know what line of argument you were going to use but this debate is still in your favour even with my specifications.
Posted by Dovahkiin117 4 years ago
Can victim be defined as bitten but in the final stage when they are nearly incapacitated by paralysis in legs an numbness in their bodies
No votes have been placed for this debate.