The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

The zombie apocalypse would be a serious threat

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,939 times Debate No: 16577
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)




Hello DDO!

"The zombie apocalypse would be a serious threat"
By this, I mean that if the dead were to rise and feast on the living it would pose an equal or greater threat to that portrayed in zombie movies. The zombies would essentially destroy society as we know it.

To avoid ridiculous semantical arguments (zombies can't be real; they would blow up like corpses do; wild animals would destroy them), it is a condition of this debate that my opponent agrees that our hyperthetical zombies would function exactly as portrayed in George A. Romero's 6 zombie movies [1].

This first round is only for acceptance, with arguments beginning round 2.

Good luck to my opponent, I hope this is a fun debate.



This seems like a fun debate, so I graciously accept.

I will argue that in the real world, with zombies behaving and functioning the same way as they do in George Romero's zombie series, a zombie uprising/attack/apocalypse/whatever, would not be as serious a threat as it would be in Romero's films.

I will await my opponent to make his opening arguments in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1


Good evening DDO and welcome to the Zombie Apocalypse, mwuahahahaha!
Before we begin, let me quickly run through the characteristics of a Romero zombie:
  • All applicable dead (I.E. brain not destroyed) return as zombies.
  • Zombies are slow moving.
  • Zombies can only be re-killed with significant damage to the brain.
  • Zombies are capable of really base level logic (I.E. use a brick a break a window.)
  • Being bitten by a zombie is 100% fatal.
  • They are capable of biting through human flesh quite easily.
  • Zombies have fairly good senses; attracted to non-Zombie sounds (I.E. gunshots.)
  • Zombies may head towards places that were important to them in life.

OK, with that in mind I’ll begin my arguments..

This is fairly obvious; if the dead started to rise and consume the living it’s likely to cause the worst panic in history simultaneously across the globe. I hypothesis that this panic would likely cause society to grind to a complete stop. The more reliant a population is on the functions of its society (I.E. the Western world) the worse it’s likely to do.

OK, assuming that the zombie apocalypse happens in some reality where zombie movies also exist, a lot of people are going to know how to kill zombies right off the bat, right?
Yeah, I guess but it isn’t going to help you:
  • Zombies don’t exactly walk in a straight line with good posture; they stumble.
  • Most people have little to no training with a gun and would find it very difficult to achieve a headshot. Even if someone had been trained, how many would be able to remain calm in the face of a rotting corpse coming at them?
  • Getting close to the zombies (to bash their skulls) might work, but is extremely dangerous given how fatal a bite is.

In summary, only a tiny percentage of people would be capable of taking on a small horde of zombies with an assault rifle and having any chance of victory.

Finally, if you consider ‘living death’ a disease than it is easily the one of the most dangerous diseases ever conceived.
  • If you are bitten, you are 100% certain to die.
  • Once anyone dies, they rise and automatically begin to spread the disease.

Finally, the most dangerous aspect of the zombie apocalypse is that the only way to be truly safe is to stay away from everyone; dead or alive.
  • Other unscrupulous people may rob you of any supplies or weapons you have.
  • Any person who dies returns as a zombie; an accidental or natural death could destroy your entire group. Worst of all, you might not even know there are zombies around until several people are effected.

Romero was right; the living dead would destroy mankind as we know it. Vote PRO


Additional Zombie Attributes
  • Are afraid of fire
  • Cannot use somewhat complex weapons

My opponent stated, " I mean that if the dead were to rise and feast on the living it would pose an equal or greater threat to that portrayed in zombie movies"

In Romero's films humanity is pushed to the brink of extinction by the zombie attack. I will therefore argue that humanity will not be pushed to such a drastic state.

I will refute each of my opponents contentings point by point.

Counter Argument 1 (Panic and Chaos)

While it is true there would be panic, society would not come to a stop. If the dead began to consume the living the military would be able to grasp complete control of many cities and towns and be able to establish marshal law in those areas while at the same time defending key means to live. Major factories, military intstallations (i.e. airfrields, sea ports), farmland, etc would all be quickly occupied by capable military forces in order to provide food, protection, and supplies to the living.

With the entire world in combat against the zombies wars between one another will be elimanted, allowing countries to use their total military man power to be dedicated to the defense of the listed key objectives making the impregnable to wandering zombie hordes.

Brutal but neccessary precautions will be taken such as the execution of the elderly, the mentally ill, and the dangerously ill in order to prevent them from becoming easy targets for zombies or dying by other means.

Keep in mind that zombies are terrified of fire. Setting fires in front of populated sanctuaries will keep zombies away.

Inside the sancturies, which are heavily defended and well supplied areas for able bodied living humans, strict orders will be followed were the dead will be burned to prevent reanimation.

Zombies will be easy for the military to eliminate seeing as they are slow, walk in relatively straight lines, have low intelligence, and will essentially be slow moving targets to soldiers who are well supplied and in large numbers. Therefore this makes it easy to go forth and eliminate advancing zombie hordes as well as occupy and protect key centers of industry, farming, logistics, supplies, etc.

I'd be very surprised if any soldiers actually became casualties to zombie bites.

Counter Argument 2 (Not So easy to Kill)

1. Zombies do walk in relatively straight lines, not perfectly straight, but straight enough that you don't need to be Annie Oakley or James Bond to get a head shot.

2. The fact that most people have no training with a gun is a problem outside Texas, but a problem nonetheless. In the event the world was thrown in chaos the fact that capable military forces are able to maintain firm hold on the means of production, transportation, etc, means that the U.S., China, Russia, Europe, etc would be able to ship arms to other sanctuaries around the globe quickly either by plane or by ship with basic manuals on how to operate them.

A single shipment of weapons that can fit in a cargo plane which would be parachuted into a foreign sanctuary or other safe area would give thousands of the inhabitants the ability to operate and use weapons.

In conclusion with proffesional militaries working within their own countries to keep means of supply, production, and transportation open and with most weapons not being very complicated to operate, weapons can be shipped where they need to be shipped quickly thus giving a significant amount of people the ability to maintain security abroad.

Counter Argument 3 (Self Spreading Epidemic)

Reanimation takes several seconds and possibly minutes. Then the dead have to rise and begin slowly hunting brains. This is not a hard disease to combat, you simply need to be equipped with fire and guns. A modern day equivalent of the Black Death would be able to infect a person, and by the end of the day kill off the entire town. There would be no medicine or method of prevention. There would be no running away.

A zombie outbreak requires

1. Dead People

2. Zombies to hunt out victims for themselves

If there aren't zombies near the vacinity, the dead won't rise. For example if zombies begin attacking a city, another city miles down the road won't have the dead reanimate. Zombies have to be near the area of dead people for their magic juju or hocus pocus ability to cause reanimation to the dead to have effect.

With military forces defending the living as well as actively hunting out zombies in the open, zombies won't be able to get near the dead.

Counter Argument 4 (Never Safe)

With well defended and supplied sanctuaries there would be no need to fear each other. By the time the world is in "JESUS CHRIST!! We are being attacked by god damned ZOMBIES mode", we would know that there is a zombie outbreak and take the precaution of shooting anyone who began to reanimate and since zombies cannot merely exist to cause reanimation of the dead, they actually have to be near the area. The dead won't reanimate if the military is defending the sanctuaries and preventing wandering zombies from approachings.


Zombies are very easy targets to eliminate. Due to this fact the military forces of the world would have virtually no difficulty in controlling and protecting vital means of production, supply, transportation, etc such as factories, farmland, airports, etc.

Zombies cannot simply exist to cause reanimation, otherwise one zombie would cause the dead to rise world wide rendering the ability to turn the living into the walking dead a useless and time wasting atribute, which it isn't.

Due to this fact the military can easily wipe out entire mobs of wandering and stumbling undead people while at the same time protecting well defended and supplied sanctuaries protecting those who happen to die within from reanimating.

This will allow well developed countries the ability to quickly wipe out the zombie threat within and begin to ship weapons and supplies to nations and areas that need it. Given areas such as Africa, Australia and other rural areas abroad will be wiped out. But the casualties inflicted by the zombie attack would not drive the human race to extinction.

Since the resolution is, "if the dead were to rise and feast on the living it would pose an equal or greater threat to that portrayed in zombie movies", and since in movies zombies drive the human race to near extinction, and since a zombie attack in the real world will not lead the human race to the brink of extinction, the resolution is negated.

Vote Con

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you to my opponent for his responses.

“If the dead began to consume the living the military would be able to grasp complete control of many cities and towns and be able to establish marshal law in those areas while at the same time defending key means to live.”

I strongly disagree. Let’s take the Government response to Hurricane Katrina [1].
Now a Hurricane is nowhere near as catastrophic as the Zombie apocalypse would be, given:
    1. It only affects one place, rather than every place simultaneously.
    2. The Government were moderately prepared for a Hurricane, having run drills for such an event
However, we can see in retrospect that their response was far from optimal. To assume that the Government would be able to respond to the extent needed to nip this outbreak at the bud is laughable.
Now, remember that the outbreak happens simultaneously around the world. This means less privileged countries would even less hope.

My opponent makes some good points. Of course any place where military/well-armed people were able to establish a stronghold may be relatively safe. Once it had been established that zombies were killed with a headshot and that they feared fire, humans would certainly be able to fight off zombie hordes to some extent. This fact doesn’t negate the resolution!
On the contrary, given PANIC & CHAOS, it seems highly unlikely that militaries would be able to secure entire cities, or even large sections of the cities. The best solution would be to evacuate all areas of dense population. How pray tell, would the super-stretched military achieve that outrageous goal?
Zombies might be easy to kill, but they are not your standard enemy. Save for carpet bombing entire cities, I don’t see how a finite number of humans could fight off the ever increasing undead hordes bashing against their defences.

Even if every member of every armed force in America [Around 2.4 million people, 2] faced off against the rest of the population [Around 308 million, 3] they would still be outnumbered 128 to 1. That’s pretty bad odds, though admittedly not completely indicative of what the statistics would be.

“If there aren't zombies near the vacinity, the dead won't rise. For example if zombies begin attacking a city, another city miles down the road won't have the dead reanimate.”

I think my opponent might not fully understand a Romero-type zombie apocalypse works. There is no “starting point”. When the dead start to rise, they start to rise EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE.

Yes, if the people are aware that someone has died in their compound they can take the necessary precautions. I am talking about the possibility of unknown undead roaming around within your ‘safe’ compound. This is really only a post-collapse danger anyway.

The zombie apocalypse would no doubt bring society as we know it to an end, as portrayed in Romero’s excellent zombie movies. We’re talking about an undead ground force rising up and growing exponentially everywhere simultaneously. The army are not prepared to deal with this and would utterly fail.

Perhaps some cities would fare better than others, some even able to maintain some kind of order but ultimately, all but the strongest shelters would fall under the undead march.
“They’re coming for you Barbara. Here comes one now.”



Panic and Chaos

In the event of such an attack the U.S. would be completely thrown in a world war mode.

The full force of the U.S. would be felt by hordes of mindless bags of rotting flesh.

This is the same nation that was able to destroy the empire of Japan and undermined the armies of North Korea and Iraq. All the while we were halfway across the world. [1]

This time our enemies our slow. Our enemies cannot use weapons. They are terrified of fire. They have to BITE to kill.

As long as soldiers are constantly equipped, which won't be hard to do when they take control of industry, factories, airfields, etc, this will be the most hilariously fought conflict in U.S. history.

I acknowledge that the dead will rise everywhere simultaneously.

This is irrelevant since

1. Many towns don't have cemetaries to begin with making it impossible for the dead to rise in such areas seeing as there arent any dead people

2. Most if not nearly all cemetaries bury the dead in wooden coffins 6 feet below the ground. A zombie laying down will have to claw through a wooden coffin, then claw through 6 feet of dirt, then stand up, to begin to mobilize.

So all in all many towns don't have cemetaries, and ones that do have the habit of burying the dead far beneath the ground. When zombies begin to appear, and pass near cemetaries, the undead bellow will have one hell of a time getting out. It would take weeks, possibly months assuming that the undead bellow are working constantly to claw out, and even then they cannot heal themselves from sratches, cuts, etc and over time the continuous wounds typically generated from digging through 6 feet of wood and dirt with your bare hands will severly physcially incapacitate the undead.

The only real way a zombie attack can grow rapidly is if they attack an area that has numerous dead bodies merely lying around already rotting in the weather. Otherwise, reanimated bodies buried in cemetaries are going to take a while to mobilize and even then become severely incapacitated..

The zombies in the first wave would be shot, burned, whatever and the dead bodies they passed over in cemetaries would begin to make movements and noise which would be easily detectable and then destroyed as well.

Not So Easy to Kill

Yes any military stronghold will be able to withstand zombies and be perfectly safe. Prison like walls with fire will be able to repel zombies from attacking those within. [2]The strongholds can be based off of the locations of airfields, farmland, industrial centers, etc keeping the defenders well supplied.

Militaries wouldn't need to secure entire cities. They could secure small towns, villages, or make bases and HQ's near places of industry, transportation, agriculture, etc.

Evacuating and saving everyone is a far fetched goal regardless of threat. Cities that do fall can be eradicated of the undead when the military and the civilian population set up fortifications and strongholds near vital supply and production areas.

You are making a HUGE assumption by saying "finate" in terms of humans. In a military protected stronghold with living quarters and actively keeping zombies away, why wouldn't the human population continue to reproduce?

Regarding your numbers.

1. It would be daunting for the military to face of against 300 million, intelligent, well armed, and somewhat organized human combatants. This is not the same case. Additionally along with 3 million service members we have 30,000 tanks, APCs, Trucks, etc that can easily lay waste to zombies.[3]

2. Civilian populations will be protected and safeguarded within the strongholds immediately, not all 300,000,000 will fall to zombies.

In addition while a shot to the head may be the most common way of killing a zombie, simply blowing off their legs, running them over with tanks, setting them alight with napalm, white phosphorus, etc are all effective ways the military can get in on the zombie slaying.

Self Spreading Epidemic

I do understand that the dead begin to rise simultaneously

But as I said above you are making the assumptions that

1. All cities, towns, counties, villages, etc all have cemetaries or dead people within the area.

2. That the populated areas that do have the dead will be quick to mobilize when in fact the dead are buried in wood, sometimes metal coffins 6 feet below the surface of the Earth. When they attempt to rise they will be making a lot of noise, they will be taking a long time for us to detect them and they will be wounded in the ways anyone will be when crawling through tens of cubic feet of dirt and wood with their bare hands.

3. That all dead people have brains that havn't been damaged or rotted away.

Never Safe

Compounds guarded by military forces and have fires burning around their premise keeping zombies away cannot have the dead randomly rise within. If this notion were true then all it would take just one zombie roaming out randomly in the Sahara desert to have the dead in Texas, Brazil, Nigeria, Taiwan, etc all over the world rise.


I already acknowledged that the dead would rise simultaneously. But this is irrelevant since not all populated areas have cemetaries or dead people just lying about, cemetaries bury the dead in wooden coffins 6 feet below the ground, a strong barrier to zombies that rise and easy to detect when they attempt to claw out for weeks and months on end.

The military is fighting slow, stupid, bags of rotting flesh that can be shot and set alight by the various incidiary weapons in their possesion as well as effective anti-personel rounds and if need be nuclear weapons as well

[Refer to videos]

With the military obviously being capable of overpowering the undead, anti-zombie fortresses can be erected and defended as well as centers of agriculture. After the initial wave of the dead simply rising, and assuming they get by detection when we hear them crawling up through the ground, which they won't, we can set up bases around areas of transportation, agriculture, industry, etc to keep ourselves supplied while at the same time keeping the dead within from becoming reanimated.

There is no reason to assume that the human race would not keep reproducing meaning we aren't necessarily finite.


(Enemies the U.S had to fight. All are more threatening than walking bags of rotting flesh who bite)


(70 Years ago the UK was able to create flame traps creating walls of flame. This can be mimiced today)


(U.S. Military Strength)

Debate Round No. 3


Good luck to my opponent; this has been a great debate and I’ve had a lot of fun researching and writing it.

First, I’d like to point out (for my opponents benefit) that Romero zombies do not dig themselves out of their graves. The outbreaks really begin in hospitals, morgues and funeral homes; places where the dead are in high density. There is also the possibility of smaller outbreaks beginning in residential areas. I’ll address this point further in the context of my rebuttals.

My opponent rightly added that zombies are afraid of fire at the beginning of his Round 2 argument. However, the extent of this fear has grown throughout his arguments to a point where I must disagree. The zombies are certainly repelled somewhat by fire, but simply possessing fire would not save you from a horde of zombies. I thought I would make that clear to the voters. I cite the scene in Romero’s Dawn of the Dead where the characters are clearing out the mall; while possessing a blow torch buys them time, it doesn’t stop the zombies from approaching to a point.

I remind my opponent and the voters: eventually the fuel runs out.

My opponent has completely ignored my reference to Katrina as an example of how the US reacts to internal disasters; I assume this is because he couldn’t find a counter-example of the US reacting quickly and efficiently to such things. Since this is the last round, it would be unfair for him to introduce new evidence to counter this and I remind voters to take this into account

Instead, he claims “In the event of such an attack the U.S. would be completely thrown in a world war mode. “

However, I find such a mode highly inefficient in the context of a zombie apocalypse as they are completely different contexts; this is why I chose Hurricane Katrina as an example of internal disaster. Remember that we are talking about 275 cities with populations ranging from 100,000 to 8,000,000 [1] in the United States. I expect the often incompetent US military would utterly fail in their response. My opponent’s sources seem to indicate that tanks, napalm and nuclear weapons are his solution. I see napalming your own cities to fight zombies as proof “you’re up against a serious threat”, which essentially proves the resolution.

Now, concerning my opponent’s counter-argument; he argues that there are simply not enough corpses around for the zombies to be a threat…

According to the CIA world fact book, specifically the part regarding the US death rate [2]…
  • The population of the US is 313,232,044
  • The death rate is 8.38 per 1,000 people per annum.
  • This means about 7,190 people die every day in the US.
(I hope I got the math right on this… 313,232,044 / 1000 * 8.38 / 365)

Now, this may seem like a fairly low number of corpses just ‘lying around’, so I’ll have to hypothesise about the inevitable exponential growth.
I’m going to try to be very generous with my under-estimation these numbers to show a 'best case scenario' is still a serious threat.
Let’s assume it takes 4 hours for a person to turn after being bitten, one quarter of the zombies are killed in the 4 hours and it takes 40 hours for the military to completely mobilise (I’ll explain why I think these numbers are very, very generous below).
Hour 0
7190 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 4
25% of zombies are killed
14,382 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 8
25% of zombies are killed
21,574 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 12
25% of zombies are killed
32,361 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 16
25% of zombies are killed…
48,542 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 20
25% of zombies are killed
72,813 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 24
25% of zombies are killed
109,220 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 28
25% of zombies are killed
163,830 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 32
25% of zombies are killed…
245,745 zombies each bite 1 person.
Hour 36
25% of zombies are killed…
368,618 zombies each bite 1 person…
Hour 40
552,828 zombies roaming the country.

So we can see 7690% growth in 40 hours; cities like New York (densely populated) are likely to be overrun before the military can even mobilise.
Now, let me explain why these numbers are drastically below what would realistically happen:
  • Each zombie is highly likely to bite more than one person in a 4 hour period. Romero zombies will generally stop eating a corpse and chase new prey. Furthermore, the places densely populated with corpses that I mentioned above are likely to turn out small armies of zombies in a matter of hours.
  • A four hour period is a fairly accurate average in my opinion; obviously a bite to the neck is going to turn you in a matter of minutes, but a bite to the arm or leg may take many hours (during which you become increasingly less able to fight zombies; this is an element I cannot factor in.)
  • I highly doubt that 25% of all zombies will be killed; I would suggest 10% maximum but I used 25% to show a best case scenario. We can't assume that it would simply be common knowledge that zombies die from head trauma and are afraid of fire; quite the opposite.
  • I also highly doubt that the military could mobilise within 40 hours to all of the 275 cities I cited above.


My opponent keeps talking about military compounds. If the population has largely been moved to such places, it only supports my resolution.
I’d also like to add that during the PANIC & CHAOS period, people who are infected would be horded unchecked along with the uninfected into whatever safe-zones my opponents mythically efficient military setup. Once it became common knowledge that the bites were completely fatal, this would only encourage fear and distrust between strangers.

Throughout this debate, I have done a lot of hypothesising about the US reaction to the zombie apocalypse. There is little doubt that third world countries with much higher death rates would fall drastically faster (I pointed this out early and my opponent never responded.) However, given Romero’s movies are based in the US; this seemed the appropriate place to set my arguments.

In summary, the US government, particularly local forces are simply not trained to deal with zombies (obviously) and given most people’s primary concern is their own lives and the lives of their families, the chance they would all react in a calm, organised and cooperative manner is unthinkable. My panic and chaos argument has remained completely relevant throughout this debate.

The US military are also untrained in dealing with an outbreak on such a massive and distributed scale. Considering there are 275 cities which you could describe as densely populated scattered through the United States, it is highly likely small towns and cities would be completely ignored and would either be abandoned or overrun.

Furthermore, given the exponential growth of the zombies, the larger the city, the faster the zombie numbers will grow. Given larger cities will be the target of larger military operations - we have an automatic evening of numbers. Zombies are attracted to noise and would inevitably head for military strongholds. Most building these days are protected not by reinforced doors and glass, but by alarms and the presence of security guards. The military would be extremely hard pressed to find enough safe places to put hundreds of thousands of terrified people, let alone the men to organise and implement such a massive undertaking.

It is my burden of proof to show that a Romero-style zombie apocalypse would affect the country in much the same way as portrayed in his films. This means large cities are abandoned to the zombies and survivors are hauled up in zombie proof structures, i.e. malls and underground bunkers.

I have certainly fulfilled this burden; resolution affirmed.



This was a fun debate and it was privilege to be a part of it.

Final Argument

My opponent still makes the assumption that most or even many towns or cities even have morgues, funeral homes, or even hospitals nearby.

He then goes on to make the assumption that the towns and cities that do happen to have morgues, funeral homes and hospitals even have a significant number of dead bodies able to be reanimated. For example if a funeral home only has 2-3 bodies that begin to rise up and chase people, passing by policemen can pick them off and thus eliminate the zombie attack in that town.

Regardless, in order for the zombie outbreak to leave no town safe from the initial attack my opponent needed to show that there was a good amount of dead able to be reanimated in a majority of towns and cities.

Concerning Fire

I will cite the scene in Night of the Living Dead where the main character simply lights a sofa on fire forcing the hordes of zombies to retreat for quite some time.

An enemy that retreats when you light objects on fire
CANNOT be considered a difficult military threat to deal with and certainly not an enemy hard to defend against.

I've also provided a source that the United Kingdom, in their desperation to fend of a Nazi invasion during the Second World War, ran fuel lines along the beach heads with nozzles that would spit out walls of fire and then be shut off again. [1] This is 70 year old technology and can be easily mimicked on a wider scale when the military takes control of towns and/or sets up bases to protect civilians. The same concept can be used and bases can easily fend off zombies from approaching.

Also Napalm bombs, incendiary tank, mortar, and artillery rounds, as well as flares are all in the military's possession to unleash on areas that need to be ridden of zombies.

An artillery barrage of white phosphorus rounds or flares in a city and/or sections of a city can effectively scare zombies away from the area making it simple to occupy for civilian and military forces.

As of 2006, the United States has in reserves: 21,760,000,000 barrels of oil.[2] Even assuming that NO oil whatsoever is produced from then on, there is more than enough oil to fuel fire traps for centuries to come.

Self Spreading Epidemic

Regarding the Katrina Hurricane Disaster, the U.S. military did respond adequately and without their assistance, many more lives would have been lost. The contributions of the military were: [3]

  • Delivering enough food to feed 15,000 for 3 days before the hurricane struck
  • Distributing generators
  • Providing medical care
  • The USS Bataan’s helicopters performed countless search and rescue missions
  • Sending convoys of emergency supplies to refugee centers.
  • The U.S Navy sent 1 Aircraft Carrier, 2 Amphibious Assault Ships, 1 Amphibious transport dock, 2 Dock Landing ships, etc to the Gulf during the disaster
  • The U.S. Air Force evacuated 25,000 in need of medical care, is running Emergency Rapid Medical Response in the city, and airlifted 9 million meals to the Gulf
  • The Coast guard evacuated 33,500 people

So despite the fact that the U.S. military has military bases housing its forces all over the world[4] and is fighting 2 wars in the middle East, the U.S. military had to deal with a natural disaster at home. A hurricane isn’t something you can shoot in the head, or light objects on fire to scare away. And look at the rescue numbers, they number in the several tens of thousands just counting the military. 1,800 were lost, but had it not been for the military the toll could be as much as 15 times higher.

I agree with my opponent that it is very unlikely that the U.S. will be able to secure most of the cities especially the densely populated ones such as Manhattan, Boston, etc.

But I have to disagree that it would be very difficult for the military to mobilize and effectively to respond to an enemy that stumbles and bites to kill. Perhaps millions will die total from within the cities in close quarters encounters with the zombies, but within a quick matter of time with people frantically running and driving away, the vast majority of people would survive. They merely have to outrun slow rotting bags of flesh.

I ask my opponent and anyone who thinks the zombie "biting" method is effective, to perform an experiment, just for a day, go out stumble around, make groaning noises, and approach absolute strangers on the streets.

Proceeded to try and bite them. See how many people you get. I’d be willing to bet that it won’t be many if any at all, due to a combo of people punching you in the face/pushing you away and then running away.

The point I’m trying to make is that the zombie’s only offensive attack, biting, is extremely obsolete and ridiculous. The reason why zombies bring about the extinction of mankind in movies is because they are too ridiculous to be anywhere near as effective in the real world.

When the military does become mobilized, it will easily be able to destroy the zombie threat.

Killing millions of unarmed and physically incapacitated individuals is something the United States can easily accomplish.

The full force of the U.S. will be brought to bear on zombies and weapons such as tactical nukes, incendiary rounds such as napalm and white phosphorous, and antipersonnel rounds such as flechette and tungsten pellets all being fired from ships, tanks, artillery, and aircraft can easily annihilate an army that wanders around aimlessly and stumbling towards passing by people in a vain and hilarious attempt to try and bite them.

With the military’s superiority in the air and land, sections of cities, towns, factories, farmland, airports, etc can all be taken and used as bases while simultanously contributing to the anti-zombie campaign.

Never Safe

My opponent has no argument explaining how the military will experience difficulty when attempting to establish these shelters and mentioning nothing more than the delay to inhibit their efforts.

Like my opponent said people become very weak when bitten anywhere by a zombie. In the Night of Living Dead, we all knew that the young girl was automatically bitten and destined to become a zombie when her parents said she was sick.

In the state of emergency that we will experience the sick will be turned away from the sanctuaries and/or summarily executed in order to cease further outbreaks as a cruel but necessary act of eradication.


I agree that 3rd world nations would have higher death rates as well but those nations aren’t as key to survival of mankind as say the U.S. or Europe.

My opponent also constantly assumes that the military needs to save every city to accomplish its objectives of saving the country. This is not true. The multi million man military only needs to secure and hold a good number of vital cities and towns as well as major centers of production, transportation, and agriculture.

With the military being resupplied constantly by various strategic sanctuaries/supply centers and actively attacking zombies in cities, rural areas, etc, the zombie outbreak will be inevitably put down.

To argue that the military is incapable of taking factories and establishing bases capable of defending against zombies is ludicrous and nonsensical.

The military will be able to eradicate the zombies eventually and mankind will not be pushed to brink of extinction like it is in the Romero films.

Since mankind will survive and thrive again surely and since the Romero films show the zombies all but annihilating the human race, the resolution is negated.

Vote Con


(World War 2 British Fire traps)

(Oil Reserves of the U.S.)

(U.S. Military Relief efforts during the Katrina Disaster)

(U.S. military bases directory. Many are in the U.S. but many are in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Central America, Arabian Peninsula, Middle East, Pacific Islands, Japan, South East Asia, etc)
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
Skeptics: You didn't read it properly. I arguing the zombies would bite one person every four hours.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
TV, you should have focused more on how the zombie apocolypse would have affected say, South America, Asia, Middle East, etc, instead of focusing on the U.S. most of the time. I wouldn't have been able to use many arguments explaining how developing countries would have been able to keep the zombies at bay. This debate wouldn't have been so close and I would have been obliterated.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
I covered this in the debate. It depends on where you are bitten. I'd say 4 hours is a good estimate.
Posted by Ofir_Gefen 5 years ago
I did not know that.
In that case ofcourse it will be harder but still our vast military abilities will allow us to build safe zones.

say, how much time does it take from the time you get bitten to the time you become a Zombie?
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
Thanks for the feedback Ofir, though you're making the same mistake my opponent made; the outbreak starts everywhere simultaneously. That's why it's so dangerous.
Posted by Ofir_Gefen 5 years ago
Hi all,
First of I just wanna say that the motion is one of the best I ever seen.
I personally think that we would be able to stop the epidemic pretty quickly.

Having said that, I think that the second debater did not post enough positive for his points, and therefore give my vote to the first debater.
He could easily gave SARS or swain flue as an example for an epidemic we controlled.

Also he should have talked about the collaboration available nowadays with agencies and international organization, most importantly our ability to commute far faster than ever before.

Lastly he should have (in my opinion) dabated a "worst case scenario" to show us how we would survive for even it. Because zombies cant swim its pretty easy to lock them in one continent. ill give you an example: if it happens in australia were good, if i happens in Europe Asia or Africa we block Israel, which is the only connection and a very narrow country, meaning it wont be hard to hold, and keep in mind we have the IDF there and can bring NATO forces easily. If that happens in america we block panama all the way from the city to the canal.

good job to both of you.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Excellent argument though, in the end it was only a few things which swayed it like that example. The real problem is zombies are not just people stumbling around, they are dead, they are decaying, they are mangled. You can see their eyes hanging out, their bowels are exposed and the smell of feces and urine is reeking. Now if you come up to someone like that and attempt to attack them are they still going to calmly deal with the situation?

Plus fights are mess and dirty affairs, especially if the other side does not care at all about injury or death, they don't feel pain and if you get infected - you are permanently askbob'ed. How calm would you be if you turned a corner and smacked right into one of them who started screaming brains and was suddenly in your face with rank and disgusting spit, bile and rotting fleshing oozing from it going over you, into your sinuses, into your mouth etc. .

Sure zombies may see all hot and sexy, but in reality fighting with one would be like having a sh!tfight with a monkey. Yeah you might win, but you are still going to be covered in sh!t.
Posted by quarterexchange 5 years ago
@ Cliff.Stamp: "one zombie you can just askbob it no problem"..... I like how you turned askbob into a verb
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
It is excellent, but it isn't your typical kill all zombies FPS. The series is about how to live in a zombie world, interestingly the society is anarcho-capitalistic.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
Oh I knew there was a comic series but I wasn't sure if it was any good or not
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued the literal resolution which was would it be as serious as in the movies or tv series so almost too the point of extinction, which he defended well. The Pro offered the zombie growth rate, but his argument assumes that each zombie will bite one person an hour which Con combatted by showing reasons why the government would be able to eliminate the threat quickly. Close debate though
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: This was close, I went through it several times as I am a fan of the genre, but think the threat it is a bit farcical as presented. Both sides argued well but in the end tv simply brought more specific points which made a dramatic impact (such as the growth data in the last round) and some of quarterexchanges responses were weak such as the biting scenario. One zombie you just askbob it no problem, but if you are walking down the street and smack into a bunch of them. 4:3 tv.