The cause of a zombie apocalypse
I belive that there will be a true zombie apocolypse that will be caused by the sudden failure of electricity and I can back it up.
What do you think it will be caused by?
I would like an opponent who also agrees there will be (or could be) a zombie appocolype but disagrees on the cause.
First round is for acceptance.
Just let me know what your stance is on this subject.
Round two is for initial evidence.
Explorations of your position are important to the overall decision making process
Round Three is for refutation.
You think I'm wrong, I think you are wrong. Wait for this round to say why.
Round Four is for Rebuttal.
Further evidence to define your own position.
Round Five is for Agreements and conclusions.
If I make statement that you agree with, let it be known. Do you continue to hold
Hope to have some fun in this debate, and wish my opponent luck.
The beginning of a zombie apocalypse will be the result of losing electricity. At the time of the apocalypse, the majority of people will be dependent on electricity for heat, refrigeration, communication, financial base, transportation, manufacturing, food processing, water distribution, identification, and a number of other things for life and social order sustainment. When the electricity goes out resources will start to diminish. People who are solely dependent on the government for sustainment services will be out of luck.
A vast majority of unprepared people won’t be able to get food, and they won’t be able to keep warm. Those people will begin by robbing super markets and convenience stores. The police will offer some resistance, and many people will die from gun battles over things like Twinkies. These people will begin to have a mob like mentality and be called zombies for the rest of this discussion.
They will be so tired, and cold, and starving that there is nothing they won’t do for a small morsel of sustenance. They will eat bugs, grass, family pets, rodents and any other thing that might possibly keep them alive. Initially those who were most dependant on electricity will remain close to their homes. They will invade neighbor’s homes and devour their food and resources until there is nothing left to eat, then they will spread to other’s homes.
Some smart families are prepared to survive for a long period of time without electricity and they will not be part of the initial mayhem. But as life for the zombies begins to get more dire, the zombies will invade the homes of those who were smart and prepared and take any food or water available. Some people will resist with guns and makeshift weapons, but the zombies will overtake them and leave them to either die or integrate into their growing numbers.
When the zombies first take all of the food from the people with brains, the food will go into a storage area and be rationed in small amounts, but the zombies won’t like it. They will claim class warfare, saying that a small amount of people have all of the food when it should belong to everyone. Reason of rationing will not appease their minds. They will attack. Which will end with all of the resources destroyed, because a zombie thinks “if we can’t have it, why should they.”
Many more people will die. All that are left will not have any food resources. Some will begin eating other humans, if they haven’t already. Diseases will spread among them. They won’t have enough water to cure themselves from common diseases like dysentery, and they won’t have medicine to stop colds from turning into pneumonia. The longer they remain in large groups the more likely the zombies will die.
They will spread out to the country and find people who still use water wells, build fires, use candles for light, and read the bible because they know that even if they lose everything, their soul will be protected by God. Gun battles and rage will ensue until the last few men are living in the presence of a self sustaining food source. Maybe near an apple orchard, or near berry bushes where there are a lot of rabbits. And the earth will rebuild itself from those few remaining murderers and vagabonds to become again what it is today.
Over the course of history, humans have had a harder time coping with an lethal pandemic than the lack of electricity. Over many years, doctors and scientists have found vaccines and cures to the most deadly and wide spreading viruses of the past. What scientists also know, is that a virus will do anything it needs to do, to survive. In this case viruses need to genetically mutate. This has been shown almost every virus known. When a new virus emerges, scientists and doctors need to find a cure. The problem is, the viruses mutate at a much faster rate than the people can find cures for. My opponent may try to use the argument that the Center of Disease Control would help stop it but in many shows, including AMC's The Walking Dead, the CDC have been found to be inefficient. Other ways to think about this is the iPhone/iPad game called "Plague."
The a zombie apocalypse would begin with the creation of a new virus. Since viruses have been known to rapidly change to survive, this particular virus will have the ability to transfer through oxygen. The importance of this virus, and how it is more deadly than the loss of electricity, is that it would happen so sudden. If the virus began infecting one person, wherever that person breathes, everyone near him would also be infected. Nowadays, people interact with others so much, so even if the virus would originate in one continent, it would travel through the people on planes also.
Similar to the idea of The Walking Dead, the symtoms would only show if the person were to be either bit, or if they died by another cause. If they were bit, the amount of cells infected would transfer through the other person's body. At that time, the victim would only have two options: remove the infected part or die. The victim would have only a few minutes to make the decision because by that time, the virus would spread throughout the body, and the person would become a zombie. By dying of another cause, such as human or natural deaths, the person will discontinue to produce enough T-cells to fight off the virus. The cells will then have enough energy to restart parts of the brain that would sense hunger and infection.
After a while, there will be few, if any people to fight off the disease.People will go in hiding, not knowing that at this time things are not bound to get better. By surviving, they are only buying themselves more time until they get infected also. The people of any resistance would be in danger because if any of the survivors die, they could infect the entire group.
Another reason why a virus would be the most deadly start of an apocalypse, is that time is of the essence. Man can only fight off the disease for so long. But how viruses work, is they reset the DNA of each cell to fit their own needs. When the cells keep regenerating, they become virus factories. After a while the person will have more infected than non infected cells. People will become paralyzed before the meet the virus makes it way to the brain, which would be a slow and painful death.
The fastest way for the population of zombies to increase, would be if an air-traveling virus were to be present. People will not be able to fight off the virus, and no matter how the person acts, they will eventually become a zombie, and once that happens, there will be no one left to talk about it.
Thank you for your acceptance of this debate. This is a fun debate, but it is also the
most epic debate on Debate.com.
I agree that spelling and grammar should be used for deciding the vote of cause and affect.
Humans have had some hard times with lethal pandemics, but they have never cause mayhem and disruption so much as they have death. Anytime there is a pandemic, leadership bodies such as the CDC have issued warnings. I won't claim any governing body will be any more effective than the initial warning. However, in known pandemics there have been people with natural immunities to the viruses. They contain the antibodies needed to fight the virus and pass the genetic mutation on to their children causing this form of Zombie creation to be limited to one generation.
Many viruses do mutate to survive, but when they mutate all previous forms of the virus become extinct as according
competitive exclusion principle, no to species can occupy the same ecological niche.
Because your virus moves through oxygen, it has the ability to affect plants. This causes a distinct identifiable warning of infection long before the infection has a chance to spread. Isolated individuals would not be affected because the virus is exported by breath.
If one hundred percent of the population, were infected with your virus. There would be no sudden death rate. Initially the only the people who become zombies will be those who die of known causes. Again causing warnings and red flags to go up everywhere. At the onset there are more people who are not zombies then there are who are zombies. The zombies will be quickly over taken and destroyed.
If the zombies only sense hunger and infection, feed them sandwiches. or bait them to all converge on Walmart. Your zombies sound like retards, so anyone would be smart enough to trick them with a piece of dried fruit. I'm assuming that they sense infection to keep them from eating themselves?
Truthfully I can't figure out from your writings who is infected how, and when do they actually become zombies. Is it a two part process?
People are infected by two ways, if the amount of infected cells outnumber the amount of not-infected, or if they die by a previous cause. If someone is to get bit or breathe too much of the virus (because it travels through air) they would be infected.
" Your zombies sound like retards, so anyone would be smart enough to trick them with a piece of dried fruit."
For one thing, zombies are not supposed to be the most intelligent things, and if someone were to "trick them with a piece of dried fruit, they would be wasting food that they could have eaten themselves. Keep in mind, humans are not the only organisms that breath in O2. Any animals that produce food or the meat that is used for food is also infected. Not that there is a zombie cow, but people would not be able to eat the meat of the cow without a risk of eating infected meat. Plants provide O2 through photosynthesis, but to do this they need CO2 as a reactant. According to my previous argument, the virus can move through any O2 compounds so therefore it can infect the air that plants breathe. Plants would be inedible also, and human survivors would not have a dependable food source. After a while there will be barley any food source because the water will be poisened also (keep in mind H2O has oxygen in it.)
"However, in known pandemics there have been people with natural immunities to the viruses. They contain the antibodies needed to fight the virus and pass the genetic mutation on to their children causing this form of Zombie creation to be limited to one generation."
As I explained in my last argument, antibodies would be able to fight off the virus for so long. The body only contains enough antibodies and t-cells to fight it off for a little while. But as the virus spreads it outnumbers the antibodies and takes over the entire body.
"At the onset there are more people who are not zombies then there are who are zombies. The zombies will be quickly over taken and destroyed."
I think that my opponent is confused about what a pandemic is. When a virus or infection spreads to different parts of the world, it is classified as a pandemic. This particular virus can travel through oxygen. If people breathe anywhere near someone else, they have a great possibility that the "someone else" has the virus. Although they are not fully considered as a zombie yet, they are predisposed to the virus. The more people interact with others, the more of the virus they encounter.
"Because your virus moves through oxygen, it has the ability to affect plants. This causes a distinct identifiable warning of infection long before the infection has a chance to spread. Isolated individuals would not be affected because the virus is exported by breath."
If people are isolated, they would not be affected by the virus. The same with electricity, those who do not live near others would be better off. After a while of course, the zombies will need to find more food and will spread out. People who are isolated though, would not have many of the necessities. Over time, the plants that are infected will pass the O2 and CO2, and the area of infected plants would greatly increase. People who are away from civilizations will be better off for a while, but then the virus would spread throughout the world.
"They contain the antibodies needed to fight the virus and pass the genetic mutation on to their children causing this form of Zombie creation to be limited to one generation."
People with natural immunities to viruses could be better off. Those people are immune to some viruses, but not all. Viruses mutate at a much faster rate than humans, and eventually another form of the virus will be created and will infect those with natural immunities.
"If one hundred percent of the population, were infected with your virus. There would be no sudden death rate. Initially the only the people who become zombies will be those who die of known causes." ... "The zombies will be quickly over taken and destroyed."
Of course there would be no sudden death rate, but gradually over a span of only a few months or years, people will have too much of the virus to fight back. Zombies would not be "quickly [overtaken, not over taken] and destroyed." Their bodies would still be regenerating and if one generation of zombies were to be destroyed, their bodies would regenerate. They would not be able to be fully exterminated, so therefore there would be no way to make them go extinct. Zombies will steeply increase in population, and at times there will be too many for the humans to even have a resistance against.
Now on to my opponents arguments
"The beginning of a zombie apocalypse will be the result of losing electricity. At the time of the apocalypse, the majority of people will be dependent on electricity for heat, refrigeration, communication, financial base, transportation, manufacturing, food processing, water distribution, identification, and a number of other things for life and social order sustainment."
Throughout his first argument, my opponent failed to consider how the people would actually become zombies. If the electricity went out, would people magically be zombies? Without that argument, my opponent cannot precede to make any other arguments.
"When the zombies first take all of the food from the people with brains, the food will go into a storage area and be rationed in small amounts, but the zombies won't like it"
What are zombies (according to your argument)? I assume, by this argument that zombies are people without brains, but my opponent did not explain how the person's brain would loose its presence.
My opponent failed to explain how the loss of electricity would result in a zombie apocalypse, so therefore his cause and effect is unreasonable. That is an unfortunate mistake, and I hope he will post a rational argument next round.
The key factor that causes my version of a zombie apocalypse to be true, is the exclusion of reanimation as a factor.
The zombie factor in my cause is not the living dead, it is the loss of intelligent reasoning. This loss is spread through groupthink which I refereed to earlier as a mob mentality.
Although the cause of the Apocalypse is lack of electricity, the mayhem comes from being without vital life sustaining resources such as food, water, and heat. Electricity is the primary generator of these resources now and will only increase as time goes on. As electricity becomes more prolific, the need for personal knowledge concerning farming, hunting, and naturally occurring food sources is diminishing.
People alive after the loss of electricity (everyone) will try to conserve their current way of life. And with no knowledge of any alternatives, they will band together as long as there are food sources and turn on each other when the sources deplete.
At the time of the apocalypse all books will be e-books and cannot be accessed. What electricity can be accessed will depleted before the food sources are depleted, and used for entertainment as opposed to sustainment.
This line of thinking, where losing electricity causes zombies, follows the metaphoric line of thinking that "zombie will eat brains". Zombies will attack people who have the knowledge to be self sustaining. Unfortunately they won't be trying to learn their own self sustainment. The zombies are wandering aimlessly until they find people with food, and then attack those people to feed themselves.
Another factor that cause my theory to be the most legitimate, is the loss of electricity to grow food and harvest food affects everyone instantaneously. The lack of food affects some people more quickly than others.
We both agree that zombies are hungry. But in my scenario the food resources have been depleted. In your scenario they have not been depleted. In my scenario zombies are capable of working together, but also have the ability turn on each other, which is more plausible then zombies only attacking the living.
One minor error, which should NOT be taken into consideration when voting is that "most epic debate on Debate.com" is false because it is actually Debate.org. I state it for my opponent's well being.
Now, to contradict my opponent's argumentations, I shall offer a few definitions for clarification from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Brain - the organ of the body in the head that controls functions, movements, sensations, and thoughts
Zombie - the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body
Now, to my opponent's argument
"When the zombies first take all of the food from the people with brains, the food will go into a storage area and be rationed in small amounts, but the zombies won"t like it." (Round 2)
Here, my opponent states that the zombies attack people with brains, which the reader can infer that a zombie is someone without a brain. He is following the definition that a zombie is the remains of a previous living body, and therefore does not have a brain.
"Which will end with all of the resources destroyed, because a zombie thinks "if we can"t have it, why should they."
Now, my opponent states "because a zombie thinks...." If zombies don't have brains, how can they possibly "think?" My opponent has an anomaly in his sequencing and arguments.
"The zombie factor in my cause is not the living dead, it is the loss of intelligent reasoning"
According to my opponent's statement, the loss of electricity would NOT even cause a zombie apocalypse. According to the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a zombie is a "reanimate a dead body." How can Con's argument be true if they have never died? Insanity is not nearly the something as death, or becoming a zombie at all. Therefore, my opponents statements are once again a folly.
"People alive after the loss of electricity (everyone) will try to conserve their current way of life. "
None of, what my opponent considers, zombies are dead yet. Why do you compare zombies to "people alive" if they are both alive? So therefore my opponent is saying that all people, zombies or not, will try to conserve their current way of life. This challenge is a cause of a zombie apocalypse, not a cause of conserving humanity's resources.
"Although the cause of the Apocalypse is lack of electricity, the mayhem comes from being without vital life sustaining resources such as food, water, and heat."
People have lived without electricity for much more time than they have. My opponent thinks that all people aroundthe world rely on only electricity for necessities. He or she did not take into consideration about third world countries. The majority of those countries are in an economic crisis that has to exclude electricity. Therefore, those countries would not be effected by the loss of electricity.
"The zombies are wandering aimlessly until they find people with food, and then attack those people to feed themselves. "
Con states that the best way to get by during this "zombie" apocalypse is to hide your food in a secret stash, and walk around acting like you are starving. It does not take a genius or intellectual being to think of this.How would this bring an end to mankind?
"In my scenario zombies are capable of working together, but also have the ability turn on each other, which is more plausible then zombies only attacking the living."
My opponent's finishing statement is an unworthy statement because it is inaccurate. I can infer that by "zombies only attacking the living," he is referring to my argument. For one thing, my opponent goes on and off about weather he classifies zombies as people with brains or not. Sometimes he says they do, sometimes he contradicts his own statements. So we can say that occasionally they work together, but if they don't have brains then they can't work together. If they have the ability to turn on eachother, they do have brains because it requires many muscles to perform a simple idea such as that.
For my arguments, my opponent has not contradicted any of it yet, and I have fully informed the audience in rounds two and three. I await my opponent's response.
Thank you toamat26. During this final round of debates, I would like to resolve that losing Electricity will cause a zombie apocalypse and that is more likely than a virus outbreak.
First I will reiterate some things-
A zombie is a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless or seemingly rote; automation –dictionary.reference.com
A person held to resemble the so called walking dead; especially : automaton –Merriam-Webster.
A person markedly strange in appearance of behavior. –Merriam-Webster.
The zombies in my scenario are not dead or reanimated. They are listless in their behavior. Before this apocalypse can take place, all parts of the world must be producing more food than is naturally possible with the aid of electricity. The zombies retain their ability to think, but not to think rationally, they are still human but in survival mode. There is no pure distinction of who is a zombie and who is not. Zombies are irrational and unwilling to farm, or hunt. Those who are not zombies are able to sustain themselves through hard work, consistency and food rationing. Currently there is neither enough reliance on electricity, nor a virus that would cause a zombie apocalypse.
Pro’s death virus is continually dormant except in death. It spreads by breath, which means only 15-20 people would be affected at one time. But the virus would be dormant in everyone that was living. So it would never affect more than 1% of the population. Loss of electricity would affect everyone immediately although the responses would vary everyone would be subject to the madness.
Loss of electricity consistently results in looting and criminal activity. Viruses do not.
It is easy to see how losing electricity could cause havoc to the extent of zombification in people all over the world, especially considering how it continues to be a more central part of our lives.
Secondly, I would once again refute my opponents' claims
Con used three definitions, one used by Dictionary.com, and one by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Dictionary.com is actually more of a search engine more than it is a dictionary, and it is not a reliable source for definitions. This would lead to my first refutation. Because of my opponent's invaluable source, we will not take into consideration that a zombie is "a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless or seemingly rote. Although, we will consider his other two definitions. I too used the Merriam-Webster dictionary for my definitions, because of it's reputation and accuracy. I reasonably picked the best example of a zombie, as being someone that "may enter into an reanimate a dead body." Con's definitions are irrelevant to this topic.
1) A person held to resemble the so called walking dead
This example would show how in the walking dead, the "walkers" were people who used to be alive but were dead, because of a similar pandemic to the example that i had. It would counter Con's claim that zombies were people who were insane.
2) A person markedly strange in appearance of behavior.
Firstly, i thought this was a typo so I did some research and found it is "appearance OR behavior." I would fully go against the use of this definition even though it would support my claim more than my opponent's. By having different appearance or behavior, this definition puts multiple possibilities on what a zombie even is. It can be a person from outer space, a person of a different religion, a mentally challenged person, etc. The definition is not thorough enough in which it doesn't explain that it is strange compared to what? If it is a human, zombies look more similar to humans than a snake, so therefore according to this definition a snake would also be a zombie.
"The zombies in my scenario are not dead or reanimated. They are listless in their behavior"
Although I rebutted the first definition by a faulty source, I will accept it. Even if that were to be true, he has 3 other definitions, one of mine, and two of his own, which would contradict this. So the "zombies in [his] scenario" would not be zombies at all, by definition.
"There is no pure distinction of who is a zombie and who is not."
Once again, I rebutted Con's third definition that there are multiple possibilities for "a person markedly strange in appearance of behavior." My opponent would be contradicting his own statement by saying this. How can a person be strange in appearance or behavior if there is no pure distinction between zombie and not zombie (which i infer to be human)?
"Zombies are irrational and unwilling to farm, or hunt."
I understand that they would be unwilling to farm, but to hunt? Wouldn't finding and attacking human homes be classified as Hunting & Gathering?
A virus is the most plausible way to start the deadliest zombie apocalypse. By genetically mutating, the virus would be able to travel through any chemical of oxygen. While there, it can infect CO2, which plants breath, and can infect the plants. Plants, after going through photosynthesis by light, Infected CO2 and H2O, would create an infected oxygen. Through there, humans would not have a reliable source of air, and through cell respiration will create more and more of the virus. Due to the virus's rapid spread, there will be no time to find a cure and stop it. By the time they do, it will be too late.
My opponent's view is that the loss of electricity would create a zombie apocalypse, but throughout the debate I refuted his arguments and used his own definitions to my advantage.
Lastly, I would like to end with this
"Currently there is neither enough reliance on electricity, nor a virus that would cause a zombie apocalypse."
We should be grateful that we have experienced neither causes, and a zombie apocalypse is not occurring right now. :)
I thank my opponent Josh_B for a great debate that I truly enjoyed, and put hard time and effort for a great cause. Let the better cause win!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|