The Instigator
Calvincambridge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ahmed.M
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Zombies are possible.

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...
Ahmed.M
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 22664
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Calvincambridge

Pro

Since my last opponent was eaten by Zombies in the middle of the debate I will try again. 1st round is terms.

Zombies- A reanimated corpse with an appetite for living flesh infected with a virus killing the host and reanimating the corpse.
Ahmed.M

Con

I accept your terms, present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Calvincambridge

Pro

I will begin with my first premise

Zombie outbreaks have already happened in history.
Zombie must be possible for a Zombie outbreak
Therefore Zombies are possible

http://www.archaeology.org...
Ahmed.M

Con

You defined a zombie as:

"Zombies- A reanimated corpse with an appetite for living flesh infected with a virus killing the host and reanimating the corpse."

Since we are speaking about zombies here, the medical definition for reanimation is:

Definition of REANIMATE
: to restore to life : revive
http://www.merriam-webster.com...


The definition for life is since you haven't provided it:

Definition of LIFE
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. human activities
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

In short, to become reanimated medically (which is crucial in this case), the zombie would need to be able to have reaction to stimuli, breathe, experience growth, and be able to reproduce. Basically regular bodily functions.

You have not met this heavy burden of proof which even gives us the slightest reasons to believe that zombies have existed. The source you provivded tells us that zombies are not able to breathe and their brains are not functioning which means they have not been reanimated. The article says:

"This may seem absurd, but you won't think its funny when you are feasting on the corpses of your friends and fellow researchers, in fact, you won't be thinking at all."

"it kills living beings and reanimates them into flesh eaters."

Therefore, I have shown that there is not a shred of evidence for zombies (definition given by my opponent) because in my opponent's source they have not really been reanimated because they cannot perform human functions based on the definition of reanimation and life I gave. Since they have not been reanimated they are not zombies.
Debate Round No. 2
Calvincambridge

Pro

May I provide a different definition "the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one." (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Ahmed.M

Con

NO, you cannot provide a definition that is too late. The general rule of thumb in debate is the first one to give the definitions, is the ones which will be followed for the rest of the debate. If any contradict later on then that is rejected. You should have elaborated in the beginnings with regards to your definition but now it is way too late.

I have shown why there is not a shred of evidence for zombies based on the definitions and the explanation I gave in R2. My opponent's resolution has been refuted.
Debate Round No. 3
Calvincambridge

Pro

Very well then I won't ask I will do it anyway Zombies are distinct creatures to the world who are ALMOST living beings but just miss the mark and it is a reanimated CORPSE just the body is restored not the organs or functions. Now rebut my article.
Ahmed.M

Con

My opponent has made absolutely zero arguments for his case which I am suppose to negate. He has not met the heavy burden of proof on him and he wants me to refute his sources which I have already done according to his defintiion in R1 of zombies and my definition of reanimation and life in R2. The resolution has been refuted. To summarize

1. Pro has presented no arguments only a source
2. His source has been rebutted and doesn't prove his case
3. He must use my definitions since I have provided them first (This other debator won because he provided definitions first and the DDO tutorial says the general rule is the person who gives definitions first)

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...

"To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first,"


Debate Round No. 4
Calvincambridge

Pro

we already made clear just the body is reanimated and not the functions.
Ahmed.M

Con

My opponent has not met his heavy Burden of Proof. I provided the definitions for the debate first and even if he wants to challenge my definition he has not given any sufficient reasons why we should use his definitions where as on the other hand my definitions are proper and were not challenged and as such stand.

I showed why the zombies are not reanimated since they don't meet the definition of reanimation and life. My opponent has provided literally no arguments and he has been rebutted. Same as my R4 response bascially. VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 4 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Well, Pro didn't challenge Con's definition for what, one or two rounds? So technically it has to be accepted and cannot be refuted. The same goes with arguments. If someone does not challenge an argument for one or more rounds, then they have pretty much dropped it.
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
con you win but really. . . your debating skills are pathetic. To win a "zombie debate" on the basis of a single overlooked definition is shaky at best. You turned what was meant to be fun and interesting into a boring debate. . .
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
hahaha Zaradi, you should've refereed him to imabench's debate :P
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Not just words defined stupidly, although it is a prominent use. Some of the best debates I've ever seen are definition debates, as it takes a part of argumentational knowledge not many people have. Why do we prefer one definition over a different definition? Any definition can be challenged/changed provided the argument is there and strong enough to do so.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
I get your point. You're mainly talking about people who define words stupidly, that should be challenged since there are good reasons for it. Thanks for the input.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Just because something is custom, it doesn't make that custom true or currect. I could have a custom that cannibalism is okay, but would that custom be true or correct? No. So let's just look at it from an objective view.

Let's say we have a debate over if poop has human DNA. You argue that it does, but do not define anything first round. I goin second round and say no! Poop does not have dna! Dna is an acronym that means....demonic nambian antelopes!

By your logic, my definition would a) become true, and b) becomes the definition for the debate, all because you a) didn't define anything and b) couldn't challenge it and offer a counter-definition. This only skews debates that could've been insightful by allowing people to de-rail them by letting them arbitrarily define a word stupidly.

As long as a) there's a reason to offer a counter definition (as the case is hinging upon the definition or something) and b) there's argumentation going as to why one definition should be preferred to the other, a definition can be challenged and changed.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
Also look at this debate, the man provided the definitions first so that is what was kept:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
Well what about the Debating tutorial which says:

http://www.debate.org...

"To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first,"

I think he forgot to finish the sentence and was trying to say the person who defines the terms first is what is set. Since he wasn't clear I posted the definitions and I don't think they are best I just think it is the rule unless you can show otherwise....
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
-.- to con: people can offer counter definitions to words, so long as they explain why their definition should be preferred. While pro didn't do that, which mean that you still get your definition, it's infuriating that you think because you posted your definition first, that your definition is best, which just isn't always true.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
CalvincambridgeAhmed.MTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't meet BOP
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
CalvincambridgeAhmed.MTied
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: I agree with Con that Pro did not meet the BOP...