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

Would a zombie apocalypse stay in Vegas?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,058 times Debate No: 28897
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I argue that were a zombie apocalypse to begin in Vegas, it would remain there. This premise is supported by Laura Bush, who claims that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". (1) In fact, anything that happens in Vegas remains in Vegas, with the exception of Herpes, according to Jeffrey Tambor. (2)

(2) Actor Jeffrey Tambor, as the character Sid Garner, in The Hangover (2009)


I argue that, while what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, as confirmed by the city's "What happens here, stays here" campaign,[1] there is a significant possibility that at least some forms of Zombism have a good chance of being a heretofore unknown form of Herpes and/or a reaction between Herpes and gluten[2], which would therefore "come back with you", per the exception to the Las Vegas Rule (The "Hangover Exception")[3].

[1] --
[2] --
[3] --
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for your response.

Con has brought up the "significant possibility that[...] forms of Zombism have a[...] fom of[...] reaction beween Herpes and gluten". Con goes on to claim that this would allow a zombie outbreak to circumvent the Las Vegas Rule via the Hangover Exception. I do not think this is practical, however, for several reasons.

Gluten allergies are extremely rare; in fact, according to Dr. Alessio Fasano, the percentage of Americans with a gluten allergy is only 1%. (1) This extrapolates to roughly 5,893 people in Las Vegas who have gluten anti-bodies. But remember, under Con's conditions, the zombies would need both a gluten allergy, AND a herpes infection to take advantage of the Hangover Exception.

Let's look at the numbers for Herpes infection in the United States. 70% of Americans are infected with oral herpes, most of them being women. (2) A much smaller portion of the population is host to genital herpes; since Con did not specify which type is more prone to cause the reaction with gluten allergy that results in zombism, I will only be using the larger number associated with oral herpes. But, even giving Con the benefit of the doubt, the number of Las Vagans with the unlikely combination of both gluten antibodies AND the herpes virus is still a measly 418,403.

Even if every single one of the people in Las Vegas who meet Con's two basic requirements develop zombism, most of them will be female, since females are more likely to be gluten intolerant. Since females run slower than men (3) the zombie outbreak will be slower, in general, than that of a zombie horde that is composed of the same male to female ration present in the human population, which is 1:101 according to the CIA. (4)

Allow me to hypothesize a zombie apocalypse in Las Vegas that developed under the most favorable circumstances; everyone with mere potential to be afflicted with zombism actually DOES become infected. This would only be 418,403 zombies, all in a 135 sq. mile area. (5) Most of them would be the slower sex.

It is highly unlikely that government intervention would be unable to put a stop to this small outbreak before they even approached the borders of Las Vegas. The U.S. government is already aware of the potential for a zombie apocalypse, and is proactive in educating civilians on how to deal with one correctly. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created "Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic" to demonstrate the importance of being prepared in case a zombie outbreak occurs. (6)

This concludes my arguments on why a zombie apocalypse, originating in Las Vegas, would stay in Vegas and be exterminated there. Good luck to my opponent in his closing arguments.



Thank you for your response; sorry for the under-the-wire reply, but them's the breaks of 24 hour shifts.

"Con has brought up the "significant possibility that[...] forms of Zombism have a[...] fom of[...] reaction beween Herpes and gluten"."

Pro is missing the "and/or" there. As the Zombie Virus has yet to be officially classified, it is impossible to verify with certainty whether it is a form of herpes. The author of [Round 1, source 2] source clearly had an a-typical zombisim infection, as she was not bitten by another zombie. She also states: "I used to be a zombie. I'm not". Thus, she may possibly be considered a "Patient Zero", the person who might start a Zombie Apocalypse. But the criteria she noted would not be necessary in bite victims, as clear precedent exists that bites infect[1].

Thus, while a relation to the Herpes virus has been tentatively suggested, it has not been proven. Nor has it been definitively established that a relation exists between the herpes virus and the gluten antibodies in the source's research. But there is the distinct possibility which must be accounted for.

I don't dispute my opponent's general claims which help him establish the hypothetical he sets up (though, I think in addition to the math error he noted in the comments, there is a dropped decimal in the statistic; I don't believe the male to female ratio is "1:101", as if that were the case, I'd have had much more fun in high school. The source link did not take me right to the statistic in order to correct it, so I'm not sure, as the US ratio I found on CIA's factbook is 1/1 for the 15-64 age group, 0.97 males/females overall[2]).

"Allow me to hypothesize a zombie apocalypse ... Most of them would be the slower sex."

Zombies do not suffer fatigue. While a female zombie is likely to run slower than a male zombie, that does not mean they will run slower than people. On the flip side, and in my opponent's favor, not all zombies are able to run (cf. "Night of the Living Dead" [original], vs. "Dawn of the Dead" [2004 remake]).

Lastly, and most importantly: my opponent fails to address incubation period. No definitive answer has been found for zombism, however, with Herpes it can be anywhere from 3-14 days, plenty of time for someone to become infected and leave Las Vegas, thus making the zombie plague not "stay in Vegas".

While I concur with my opponent in an assessment that a zombie outbreak that happened in Vegas, would stand a very good chance of staying in Vegas, I believe that it is by no means a certainty. As such, thus means the answer to the question "Would a Zombie Apocalypse stay in Vegas" is "Not necessarily".

Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and I give full kudos to his mad research and argumentation skillz!

P.S. Less so the math though...

P.P.S. Who am I kidding, I'm just as bad. I'm lucky I get my citations right most of the time, let alone the actual math.

[1] "
[2] "
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
LOL, I've never heard that phrase before...
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
And done!
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Lol. You know what, I will! Not necessarily tonight, but as soon as I get a chance to find a sufficiently cool new one.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
bladerunner, I demand you change your avatar! Philosophoraptor has finally found the answer to his question :)
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
Please don't tell me you are implying zombies aren't real?! We are debating national security here. If you don't believe in zombies... well, that won't protect you when (not if) the zombie apocalypse happens and you have a horde of filthy undead clawing at you.
Posted by Jim92 3 years ago
People will debate anything on here.. haha
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
Damnit! I got my math wrong: there would likely only be 4,125 zombies... NOT 418,403!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources, but got the math wrong.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's "incubation" point would win him the debate hands down, however I'm slow to count this considering that Pro had no chance to respond. However, it was Pro who established the debate in this way so I see no reason to penalize Con. Furthermore, Pro's claims that slowness and the low number of zombies aren't in themselves sufficient to induce certainty that zombies wouldn't be able to escape Vegas. At this point it becomes a percentage estimation, rather than an argument based out of the rules established in R1, which is what I think Pro had in mind.