The Instigator
tvellalott
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Zombies are more dangerous than Vampires.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 4 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,642 times Debate No: 16215
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (4)

 

tvellalott

Pro

Let me be more specific. A "zombie apocolypse"-style situation, where anyone who dies rises as a zombie would be more dangerous to humanity than a vampire uprising, as suggested by whatever sources my opponent cares to mention.

The first round is for acceptance and any non-argument point my opponent cares to mention.

Arguments begin in round 2.
FREEDO

Con

//The first round is for acceptance//

I accept.

//and any non-argument point my opponent cares to mention.//

Your mother's a whore.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Pro

tvellalott forfeited this round.
FREEDO

Con

I forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Pro

Greeting lovers of gore and the undead! Many apologies to my opponent for my forfeit last previous round and the subsequent shortening of this debate; conduct points to him.

OPENING
The undead; creatures of darkness and doom!

I have long been a fan of horror movies, but my absolute favourite antagonist is certainly the humble zombie. These creatures delight me, because they are so simple yet exponentially effective with each passing moment. This is not to say I don’t like vampires, but I much prefer zombalinis.

Moving on…

ARGUMENTS
Zombies can survive sunlight; vampires cannot.

Even if my opponent wants to mention the few specific exceptions to this argument, he must surely agree that in the general mythology surrounding these two threats, it is almost always the case. Vampires are inherently creatures of the night. Generally, they catch on fire and die their second death when exposed to sunlight. Zombies don’t have this problem. Given that around half an Earth year is daytime, this clearly gives zombies an advantage. In a vampire apocalypse situation, survivors would be able to venture out during the day.

All corpses are potentially zombies; vampires must be made.

Again, my opponent may want to mention exceptions to this argument, but this is a very common version of both of these creature’s mythology. The danger here is that if you have a secure location, one of the members of your group could turn unexpectedly (natural causes, in an accident, etc.) and return to kill one of your other members or you. It is very rarely does vampire mythology not have some kind of ‘siring’ ritual where the vampire feeds their own blood to a drained human to turn them.

Zombies are a mindless horde; vampires have logic and powers… wait what?

So I suppose you are wondering how this could possibly be an advantage to the zombies. Well, I suppose it isn’t, but I want to make a pre-emptive counter-argument anyway.
What creature doesn’t a zombie kill, ever? Another zombie of course! This is because zombies simply have one drive; to eat the living. Vampires may have powers and logic, but this is often their undoing!
You see, one fairly standard vampire (super strength and speed) may have been able to take out the group living in the Mall in Dawn of the Dead with ease. However vampires are perhaps too smart; they know that feasting can never be endless, yet they have this insatiable need to drink human blood. Take the movie Daybreakers for example [1]. This is a vampire apocalypse movie, much like the one I envisioned when making this debate. In it, the vampires have most of the humans left in a vegetative state, but there is an rebellion obviously. When the vampires begin to run out of blood and the poor (free-market economy for the win) begin to starve and turn into half-bat creatures that kill other vampires.

In summary, vampires are capable of conspiring against each other; zombies are not.

A thirst which must be satisfied

These creatures have their taste in victim in common sure, but there is an important consideration to make. Vampires may kick royal arse when they have a belly full of fresh human blood, but those powers come at a cost, the thirst. Zombies have no such hindrance. They will keep coming until their bodies succumb to decay and no longer function.
They won’t grow weak or tired. They’ll keep banging on the door, attracting more and more zombies until the door gives way or they all rot.

CONCLUSION
The humble zombie; in a battle the vampire would utterly destroy the zombie but in an apocalypse situation? I am not so sure. Vampires would have some advantage in being able to get at survivors but ultimately they don’t have any way of knowing where humans are hiding. The world is too big! However, with all the disadvantages I’ve mentioned above, you can see the advantage of the tried and tested zombie.
  • In a vampire apocalypse, you would be safe during the day.
  • In a vampire apocalypse, you don’t have to fear being killed by your 5 year old daughter in your sleep when you were otherwise safe.
  • To reiterate, vampires are capable of conspiring against each other, zombies are not.
  • Zombies are tireless, vampires are not.
Resolution affirmed.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.imdb.com...
FREEDO

Con

I am delighted to take up this debate.
No need to give me the conduct point, I also forfeited. I am confident that my arguments will be enough.

REPLIES

Zombies can survive sunlight; vampires cannot.

I in no way deny this argument. I will not degrade myself to use Twilight as a source for vampirism--degrading myself is what speedos are for. I will just go with general vampire folklore.

However! I do have something to add. As you know, the earth is round and has day on one side while it is night on the other. Combined with the fact that vampires can fly or at least travel rapidly and also that they never sleep, vampires can theoretically always stay in night-time. This is ideal since most humans are asleep at this time.

All corpses are potentially zombies; vampires must be made.

Meh, nothing to say on this one. I accept it.

Zombies are a mindless horde; vampires have logic and powers… wait what?

Aw, I didn't expect this one. You're completely right! Just look at humans, with all of our intelligence, we are capable of enormous killings and other atrocities to our own species that no other species can rival and it also explains why we...uh...dominate all other lifeforms of earth...oh yeah. Nevermind, your arguments sucks.

ARGUMENTS

Zombies are easy prey for animals.

Do you know why we are at the top of the food chain? It certainly isn't because we're stronger or faster than anything else. It is almost solely about our brains, without which we are little more than tasty flesh-bags. With zombies, you've essentially taken the only truly useful weapon that a human has away. Zombies don't even have the sense of self-preservation that we do, just wandering around in the open all the time looking for something to kill them.

Temperature.

This is one thing in zombie movies that is consistantly over-looked (since the movie would no longer have a plot). Zombies would only have a chance in moderate temperatures.

Firstly, there's heat. Have you ever seen a dead animal on the side of the road on a hot day? What happens to it if doesn't get eaten or removed? It turns into a fuckiing balloon, that's what. Not after long, they blow-up like a jump-house. That would make for an incredibly hilarious zombie, even though they probably wouldn't be able to walk.

Secondly, there's the cold. What happens to your muscles when you die? They lose their natural temperature regulating system. If you lock a person in a meat-freezer, they're muscles are going to stay pretty warm until they die, while the steak next to them is hard as a rock. Thus, zombies would not be able to function in below freezing temperatures, which is majority of the Earth if you consider year-round.

Zombies can't heal.

Vampires at least imitate being alive. Zombies are just twitchy rotting corpses. When a bob-cat rips it's asss off; when a farmer blows it's arm full of holes with a shotgun; when it's belly bursts open from the gases building up in it during the heat, it will just be stuck with what it has and never regain health.

Time will one day screw a zombie in one way or another. Whereas, vampires are designed to be immortal.

Zombies can't get passed barriers.

This is probably the most obvious one that shows they don't have a chance. Don't want zombies in your house? Close the door. Don't want them on your property? Own a fence. Pretty straight forward.

Vampires will hop the fence, pick a locked door and kill you while you sleep, all while not having the slightest urge to let out a loud moan to let you know it's coming.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Pro

I’ll get right into it…

REBUTTALS
“Always stay in night time.”
If vampires were to be travelling constantly to avoid the sun, I imagine the humans would be much safer.

“Your argument sucks…”
Let me reiterate and expand, since I don’t think your response does my point any justice.

A zombie has no differentiation between hungry and not hungry. They just keep eating until their stomach bursts, then they keep eating. If they spot live prey, they will stop eating the corpse they are munching on and chase the living.
A zombie will not kill other zombies, even if doing so will result in eating more. They have been seen to shove each other out of the way or groan loudly at each other, but they never kill each other.

These are very important when compared to a vampire…
A vampire has the intelligence to think about keeping a supply of blood for the future. In both a vampire and a zombie apocalypse-situation, you’re likely to come to a point where everybody but a few groups of survivors are dead, feasted on by the undead.

However, only in the vampire situation do you have the possibility of vampires mass-murdering other vampires. This seems like the logical thing to do, for these logical, greedy, powerful and merciless creatures. I know I’m hypothesising but I did cite an example of this last round.

“Zombies are easy prey for animals”
I strongly disagree. Zombies eat animals, just as they do humans. Obviously people are their prey of choice, but take Episode 1 of Walking Dead; a horse is torn apart and consumed by the zombie horde. The reason you don’t see zombies eating animals is because they have the sense to avoid them.

“Temperature”
Again, I disagree. Zombies are not your normal corpse. We don’t see zombies exploding as my opponent suggests. Take the classic Romero zombie movie “Dawn of the Dead”; the survivors stay in the mall for weeks. The only thing that happened to the zombies outside is that more of them came.

I concede “Zombies can’t heal”

“Zombies can’t get through barriers”
I largely agree with my opponent. There are certainly many obstacles a zombie can’t pass BUT they are quite a force. They are capable or breaking down the door of your house and perhaps breaching a fence. I’m sure there is some physics to explain how many zombies it takes to get through x amount of resistance, but I’m sure the readers are familiar with it. I’ll add now that many vampire mythologies, both old and modern show vampires not being able to come into your home unless invited. I somehow doubt that would work on a zombie…
“Haha, zombie, you can’t come in unless you’re invi—i--- AHHHHHH argh… *nom nom*”

FINAL CONCLUSION
My opponent clearly thinks that vampires are devastatingly more powerful than zombies, therefore a vampire apocalypse is more dangerous than a zombie one.

This is simply not the case.
In both situations, the population is going to be largely wiped out fairly quickly (or possibly enslaved, which is less dangerous than dying and becoming a zombie in my opinion). Most zombie movies suggest only a couple of weeks from outbreak until the world collapses.
Vampires may sire and sire, but they cannot spread anywhere near as fast as zombies and it isn’t in their best interest to do so anyway. I accept that vampires could easily find and slaughter people much faster in the early parts of the hypothetical apocalypse, however a least some of the vampires must realise if they slaughter and slaughter, eventually there will be no blood to drink. They can then destroy the stupid, greedy and violent ones, if they choose.
Zombies have no such hesitation. Nom nom nom.

Regardless, we can see that both would come to a situation where there were only a few scattered humans left.
And again, even at this point zombies are more dangerous, for the reasons I’ve already stated:
  • People would be safe during the daytime.
  • They wouldn’t have to fear one of their group’s members unexpectedly turning.
The zombie apocalypse is clearly more dangerous than a pvssy vampire one.

VOTE Pro
FREEDO

Con

REPLIES

"If vampires were to be travelling constantly to avoid the sun, I imagine the humans would be much safer."

Actually, you're missing the point. You brought up the argument that vampires can't go in the sunlight. I showed that this doesn't matter, they can still attack 24/7. In-fact, I only gave half the story, there's more. Lets not forget that vampires can also attack anywhere with heavy cloud cover, during the day. Even more importantly, there's an entire region they may attack non-stop for months in the northern hemisphere, during certain times of the year. The point is that sunlight doesn't truly stand in any vampire's way.

"Let me reiterate and expand..."

Like I pointed out, humans are a perfect example of why your arguments is wrong. Humans are the most self-destructive species on Earth due to our intelligence but it doesn't change the fact that we are still the dominant one.

"I strongly disagree. Zombies eat animals, just as they do humans."

Haha, this is laughable. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that humans have basically zero hunting assets besides their intelligence? Imagining a zombie trying to run after a wild animal so it can bite it is really quite hilarious. Our bodies are slow and our face is not made for biting into something while it's still moving.

"Again, I disagree"

Sorry but it doesn't really matter of you agree with it or not, those are the facts, lol. Dead bodies behave this way in the temperature. You can't say it's not true just because movie-makers didn't think things through good enough.

"They are capable or breaking down the door of your house and perhaps breaching a fence."

Zombies can break windows. A door? No. Do you know how hard it is to break down a normal door? It needs to be kicked, and in a specific location. Pounding on it will just make lots of noise. Have you ever seen a zombie kick? They don't even have the mental abilities to do that. That can't even figure out that fences can be climbed over.

Vampires, on the other hand? They can lure you outside. They can even destroy your house with weapons if they wanted to. In the early stages of a vampire apocalypse they may even launch mass air-strikes with bombs and send in armed troops after they're done, for the purpose of weakening human resistance rather than drinking blood.

"In both situations, the population is going to be largely wiped out fairly quickly."

Actually, I think both apocalypses would likely fail. Humans are a worse monster than either. One of zombies would almost certainly fail.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
How's this for bad conduct: piss off.
Posted by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
Freedo and PRO both have bad conduct. Learn how to argue, girls!
Posted by Sieben 3 years ago
Sieben
Conduct to freedo since Tv forfeited a round.

S&T tie

Freedo comes very close to losing the argument. He argues for vampire *dominance*, which he doesn't prove is actually dangerous. So what if 100 vampires secretly control the world? What are they going to do, kill 36,500 people per year? That would make a vampire elite less dangerous than american highways...

The reason Freedo doesn't lose the argument is because his argument that human beings are super dangerous goes unanswered. Freedo extends this in the last round to show that the human race would squish either uprising. One can still be more dangerous than the other, but until either debater reconciles their case with human dominance the analysis is incomplete. So its a tie.

Freedo has other unanswered arguments like immortality. Overall I think both debaters need to actually tag their damn arguments, and then make extensions to the resolution in the second to last round. If you make extensions and then weigh arguments it makes it a lot easier/fairer to judge. Otherwise I'm just sitting here giving one of you the win based on what I figure out in my own head, not what either of you actually did in the debate round.

Sources? Tv used movies. I thought his use of movies was abusive because he can just cherry pick whatever 80's movie he wants to prove his case. His rebuttal to Freedo's temperature analysis was "it didn't happen in the movies". That's really lame but Freedo didn't call him on it so I can't vote on it.

I actually think that since the analysis was a tie, Tv failed his positive burden. But because there's no framework on the resolution I don't want to vote too heavily on it. To respect the magnitude of other's votes, I award 2 pts to freedo. 1 for conduct, and the other for slight edge on unanswered arguments and scientific analysis.
Posted by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
Nice one. I might move this discussion to our profile comments...
Posted by Korashk 3 years ago
Korashk
You might enjoy reading this debate I did a while ago. It's pretty short. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
I'll debate you something similar; I've all but exhausted my arguments on this particular matter here. I'm always prepared to write about the awesomeness of Homo Zombian.
Posted by Korashk 3 years ago
Korashk
I'd actually not mind having this debate with you, tv.
Posted by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
Do real life humans act like vampire movie humans? Don't you see the problem here... If you want to use the powers vampires have in their mythology as part of your argument, you can't then argue that zombies wouldn't function as they do in their mythology. That's clearly bullsh!t.
Posted by Korashk 3 years ago
Korashk
/// What are your different reasons? ///

Mainly that real life humans do not act like zombie movie humans. We'd easily defend ourselves once the initial "omg zombies" shock wore off.
Posted by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
No, but your argument that zombies would blow up in the heat, when they clearly don't, IS stupid and completely ignores the mythology.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 3 years ago
CAPLlock
tvellalottFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Sieben 3 years ago
Sieben
tvellalottFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments. Vote cast for 2 pts, not for sources explicitly.
Vote Placed by Korashk 3 years ago
Korashk
tvellalottFREEDOTied
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: Expanded in comments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tvellalottFREEDOTied
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: "You can't say it's not true just because movie-makers didn't think things through good enough." zombie are not really real, if you want to use reality zombies are pretty harmless as they are fictional. 1 pt to Pro, Freedo really did not seem to put a lot of effort into this, and had an odd was of responding see for example the attempted refute of the horse point, 2:1 pro