The Instigator
Pro (for)
39 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

A Robot Uprising would be more disasterous to humanity than a Zombie Apocalypse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 8 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,410 times Debate No: 16051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (8)




This is the second round of Freeman's debate tournament. Since my opponent is busy for a while, we decided to do a less serious debate and go with this. First I thank Darth_Grievous_42, who did this debate before and was the inspiration for this round.

Obviously I also thank Hello-Orange for accepting and wish him luck.

First some clarifications before we get started.

1. I defend humanoid, generally intelligent robots. The justification is that in order to rebel, robots have to realize they should destroy the human race (for whatever reason) and that rebelling is in their best interest . In other words, I defend the kind similar to those shown in I Robot, shown here.

2. Going off I Robot, my bots are susceptible to damage. Guns can destroy limbs rather easily, but hand-to-hand is not viable unless its with a blunt object.

3. My opponent can use his own interpretation of zombies as long as they fit the general stereotype (like, don't give them super speed.) Some of these main attributes are that they turn victims into more zombies rather than killing them, don't feel pain, and only "die" from their head being destroyed.

4. No mention of nuclear weapons, as this takes out both our forces rather easily.

5. We both have equal BoP. Con muct give arguments for zombies and against bots, and vice versa for me.

6. Round 1 is for intros, etc.

I don't think anything else needs to be cleared up. I'm sure that neither myself nor Hello-Orange plan on using unfair interpretations to win.

I look forward to a fun debate.


I accept the debate, and the rules my opponent has outlined.
I will define a zombie as, "a creature whose mental capacity has been destroyed. or who's body has been re-animated after death"

My basic stance, is that a "Zombie (Apocalypse)" would be more disastrous to (Humanity) than a "Robot (Uprising)"

as the framer my opponent has the right to set the rules, so i will end my greeting and definitions here.

Here is to a fantastic, and fun debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Lets begin.

1. Robots can manipulate human technology

A. Weapons

The humanoid robot's ability to wield human weaponry, such as machine guns and military vehicles, gives them an instant advantage over zombies, which are far too brainless and simple-minded to understand them. For example, in I Robot, the robot uprising easily overruns a police station and steal the officer's guns right out of their hands. Alternately, you can look at this pic and easily see that robots can harness human weaponry.

Therefore, if a robot uprising were to occur, they could easily match the humans' firepower by manipulating the same weapons they themselves use. It could even be argued that they would be MORE effective because of their intelligence and strong physical capabilities. In addition, the ability to use human weapons gives them several more methods of attack than zombies have. This will also turn any argument con makes regarding humans using weapons to fight back, because robots could use the exact same things to bring them down.

B. Range

The ability to use firearms also gives robots a range advantage over zombies, which can only strike by direct, up-close-and-personal means. Therefore, robots can attack from both short, medium, and long range, contrary to zombies which are limited to arm swipes and zombie chomps.

C. Vehicles

But its not just weapons. They can also harness cars, helicopters, and other vehicles. This gives them an instant speed and mobility advantage. Humans cant simply hope to get in the nearest car and flee if the going gets tough. Humanoid robots will easily pursue their prey. In addition, their ability to harness airborne mobility such as helicopters and fighter-planes, means that man cannot escape the fight by going airborne and simply shooting from above, which would be a super-easy way to squash a horde of zombies.

2. The intellect of robots gives them strategic capabilities

A. Defense

First, zombies are dumb and foolish; my opponent himself defines zombies as having no mental capacity. Their lust for brains causes them to walk blindly in a linear line, straight into oncoming firepower. They often make no effort to avoid damage, and instead simply waltz slowly toward their prey like mere...zombies

Robots, on the contrary, are intelligent, sentient beings. They are aware they can sustain damage and thus work to avoid it; they will not simply walk into the onslaught of human firepower raining down on them. For example, in I Robot once again, a mini-battle takes place between a large group of humans with various blunt weapons, and a similar group of robots armed with nothing. The humanoids easily crush the human force by stealing their weapons, dodging incoming attacks, and jumping high in the air to give a strategic aerial attack. Zombies neither can nor will make such effort.

Robots would use cover, hiding places, and flanking techniques to avoid incoming firepower and overrun the human force. They can also bring various Shield devices into battle to deflect bullets coming their way. This defensive capability is something zombies simply to not have the brains to think of.

B. Indirect attacks

Robots can also resort to unconventional means to destroy humanity that zombies could never achieve. Rather than go at the humans directly, which are likely loaded with weapons, they could simply destroy as many farms and forests as they could find, depriving humans of their food supply. Or they could contaminate springs and other fresh water sources, depriving humans of their water supply. Finally, they could launch a biological or chemical weapon at a human outpost, which the robots would obviously not be affected by. Bots could think of such tactics; its highly doubtful that zombies can do the same.

3. Robots can be repaired and manufactured

A. Multiplication

You may think that zombies are advantaged because they can turn humans into zombies, thus creating more of themselves. Not so fast. Remember, robots are made of various metal alloys that are shipped to a factory and melded to become a robot. By doing so, factories can mass-produce an army within weeks or even days. Thus, robots can replicate themselves infinitely by simply taking over a factory and continuing production. This again happened in I Robot; Will Smith even pointed out that a particular factory was run by "robots building robots".

Heck, they're not even limited by the amount of humans on the planet like zombies are. They can mass produce as many robots as the elements on Earth can sustain. Zombies however, rely on biting a struggling human as a prerequisite for multiplication; they cant simply magnify their force at will. So while the perception of zombies destroying humanity by sheer numbers may be feasible, in reality, robots actually do this even BETTER.

B. Maintenance

Also, robots have the ability to repair themselves. Being made of titanium and copper wires has more benefits than just a hard outer shell. If a robot is able to survive a battle wounded, it can simply go back to a factory or other site to be repaired back to full condition, just as wrecked cars are fixed at the nearest auto shop. In contrast, zombies are pretty much screwed if they lose a head or two. While they can still fight if an arm is chopped off, they would be inhibited in battle, with no way to compensate.

4. Robots can transcend geographical boundaries.

Considering that a zombie outbreak usually starts through a contagious disease and goes from there, one can simply escape it by moving to a different continent. For example, if an outbreak were to start in Canada, the zombies could, at best, spread throughout North and South America before having their expansion halted by the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. Zombies can't really swim, so their only option would be to walk into the bottom of the sea and hoof it. Unfortunately, the water pressure at the bottom of the sea is well over 16,000 pounds per square inch, meaning there's approximately a -2% chance they would make it to the other side. So while they may spread to Alaska and be able to see Russia from their window, they'd have no real way of actually getting there.

And they cant try and float their way over either. Even if the massive ocean waves didn't push them right back to shore, the water would decompose what's left of their "bodies" before they could get halfway to Ireland.

Robots however, can swim use boats.

Therefore, acknowledge robots over zombies for a few reasons: They use human tech against them, are infinitely smarter than brain-dead zombies, multiply more efficiently, and aren't limited by geographical constraints.

I hand it to the con.



I thank my opponent for his constructive arguments!
First before we begin to debate this issue, we must look to what exactly the resolution states, "A Robot (Uprising) would be more disasterous to (humanity) than a Zombie (Apocalypse)"
There are three key words here,
1. Uprising; which does not indicate negative connotation for those outside the robot community.
2. Humanity; the group who is receiving the negative impacts.
3. Apocalypse; meaning an end to the world.

When debating such a resolution, these words are key in interpretation and analysis of the clash that will take place so as this debate does not come down to being a debate of personal opinions or one based on pop-culture.

Second it is important to note that when debating a topic such as this, where the two opposing stances are in direct conflict; these two scenarios are only probable as something with any weight to it when we realize that they must happen at the same time and be weighed directly against each other. The side who proves that their stance advocates the most negative impacts for humanity will then be the winner.

That said, here are my first few contentions

C1 Robot Uprising-
As Isaac Asimov outlines in his wildly successful novel "I, Robot" there are three rules that all anthropomorphic robots must adhere to[1].
a. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
b. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
c. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

- as prior stated, the term my opponent has chosen in the resolution (uprising) is not one of direct negative connotation to humanity, but simply indicates some form of robotic revolution. Whether this indicates great strides in the field of robotic studies, perfection of artificial intelligence, or even robots being given civil right. This simply indicates that the area of robotics would be improved. so at the point that my opponent does not show us that these uprisings would be negative for humanity; they lose.

-Where there to be a robot uprising, it would not have negative impacts for human beings; but would simply improve robot's social status; robots would still live in peace with humanity, and even protect humanity. So linking this back to the fact that both a robot uprising, and a zombie apocalypse would need to happen at the same time to see which would be more detrimental to humanity, we see that a robot uprising would actually be an incredibly good thing for humanity, as the robots would protect humanity from the zombies.

-Finally, in terms of probability, time frame, and magnitude (as per CiRrK's request);
Probability- since artificial intelligence has not been crafted beyond novelty for anthropomorphic robots; we can only seriously consider a robot uprising in theory.
Time Frame- my opponent offer none, thus he forfeits this as of now
Magnitude- None, as in theory a robot uprising would be a positive thing for humanity; and in reality it has yet to happen, and we aren't even close to realizing this.

C2 Zombie apocalypse-
Again let's link back to the tree key words of the resolution; "apocalypse" by sheer definition, this is something of negative connotation, as it points to global destruction; something that would at the extreme least cause minor inconveniences to mankind, and at the extreme most cause complete extinction of all life-forms.

Thus in theory, I've already won this debate because of the resolution's wording. However if I ended here that wouldn't be any fun; so let's look at some further issues of zombies in pragmatic reality

a. Haitian zombie power-

First, Hatian zombie power is a "medicine" that exists in haitian voodoo[2][3][4] practices, that can destroy a human being's mind, turning them into a perpetual slave. This is done with various neurological toxins that can destroy both mental capacity, free will, and bodily functionings.

The negative impacts of Haitian Zombie Powder in the status quo are, to name a few:
- Sex Slavery
- Human Vegetation
- Civil Right Violations
- etc.

Obviously none of these things are good in the small scale happenings of this existing solely in Haiti; thus where there to be a zombie apocalypse, and everyone where to affected with Haitian zombie powder, it would be the end of society as we know it. Those whose bodies didn't shut down immediately due to neurotoxins would all die from starvation, (as they wouldn't even be able to realize that where hungry and needed to eat to maintain homeostasis) or would be completely aware as their body slowly decayed from starvation.
Now no matter how you look at this situation, it will be negative for the entirety of society (minus a few suicidal individuals, or otherwise mentally disturbed members of society).

Now going onto my opponent's arguments, I only have two rather broad attacks for now;
1. My opponent actually references "I, Robot" as a model for the debate; thus they accept the three laws of robotics that Isaac Asimov lays out for us. At the point we realize this, there is nothing in the arguments my opponent lays that would indicate a Robot Uprising would be a bad thing for humanity

2. My opponent's constructive case doesn't actually cover the resolution, but instead only covers the positive points that robots have, and the negative points that Zombies have. But not only that, aside from a single link to a picture of the terminator, my opponent offers no evidence to either back up is claims; nor to link them to the resolution.

Thus, my opponent is non-sequitar; you have not ground to vote on him. Vote Con as I have proven a Zombie apocalypse is worse than a Robot Uprising.

Debate Round No. 2


I will try to keep myself civil, but I can't help but feel very disappointed by what my opponent has argued.

I trusted my opponent to debate what the topic is clearly about without semantics or weird interpretations of the resolution, since he had told me he hated semantics. So I didn't feel the need to initially offer definitions or an excessive amounts of rules. It appears I was wrong.


My opponent's main argument is that a Robot Uprising is actually just a "revolution", which could be simple strides in robo-technology or something else thats not necessarily bad.

1. Absolutely no warrant as to why Uprising = Revolution. His argument is based on the word Revolution potentially implying something good. But the resolution references an Uprising, not a Revolution. So this isn't even topical.

2. Even if uprising = revolution, my opponent knows what the resolution actually means, don't let him act like he doesn't. The voters also know what the resolution asks, and so do I. Vote pro because he has made the active choice to avoid the topic at hand.

3. Even though he argued from semantics, he never gave an actual definition, so prefer the following ones I give.

Here's why an Uprising is a bad thing (which should have been obvious from the start).

4. Merriam-Webster's defines Uprising as "a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" (1).

5. - Very first definition`: "an insurrection or revolt. " (2)

6. Google Define - Very first definition: "rebellion (or) organized opposition to authority." (3)

7. If just defining Uprising isn't good enough, lets do Robot Uprising.

Google Define - very first definition: " ...a scenario in which AIs (either a single supercomputer, a computer network, or sometimes a "race" of intelligent machines) decide that humans are a threat (either to the machines or to themselves) or are oppressors and try to destroy or to enslave them..." (4)

All of these indicate a direct negative connotation. They all imply that robots will directly conflict with human interests with violence.

8. Oh yeah, and my definitions were all the very first ones listed on those sites, so clearly my interpretation is the one most widely accepted.

9. My opponent accepted my model of I Robot. In that movie, the uprising was clearly the humanoids revolting against the human race with FORCE.

10. He accepted all of my rules in the opening round. My rule 1 referenced robots rebelling and to destroy the human race. Clearly negative connotation.

11. Most importantly, Freeman has forbid semantics for this tournament (5). This is a semantic argument.

So yeah, a robot uprising is a bad thing.

Next, he argues the Three Laws in I Robot would prevent robots from harming humanity.

Apparently my opponent hasn't watched the movie. In I Robot, the three laws are what caused the rebellion. In order to "protect humanity", the robots decided to revolt against the human race with force to stop them from polluting the environment, going to war, etc.

Oh yeah, and the law saying robots couldnt harm humans failed. Here is a link to the full I Robot movie. (sorry, I couldnt find this scene individually). At 1:25:00 you will see an army of robots physically attacking human beings with extreme force. Later, one would even assault a fleeing human. So much for them protecting us. (7)

Onto his Impact Calculus


He says tech not advanced enough for intelligent robots

1. This is a debate about fictional occurrences. It doesn't matter whether these things could actually happen.

2. Its not like we've developed a zombie-disease either.


He says I offered none

1. That was his only argument on this, so he offered none either.

2. Timeframe is irrelevant. Considering how drastic the two occurrences in the resolution are, its impossible to predict which will come first.


He says uprising would be good

1. Extend all eleven arguments as to why thats false.

2. His only argument for zombies' power is based off semantics (I'm about to get to that). My argument for the strength of robots is based off logical reasoning.


According to him, using the word Apocalypse instantly means the world is destroyed.

He said that "apocalypse by sheer definition...points to global destruction".

1. What definition? He offered none.

2. He is again arguing off pure semantics rather than what we all know the phrase actually means. Zombie Apocalypse is simply the term used to describe a horde of zombies trying to destroy humanity.

3. Definition of Zombie Apocalypse (very first definition off Google Define): "A zombie apocalypse is a particular hypothetical scenario of apocalyptic theory that customarily has a science fiction/horror rationale. In a zombie apocalypse, a widespread rise of zombies hostile to human life engages in a general assault on civilization." (6)
Nowhere does it say the world instantly comes to an end.

A. Haitian Zombie Powder

He says there is a neurotoxin in Haiti that kills people, and if it becomes an "apocalypse", we all die.

There's a lot of things I'd like to say about this, but two things should suffice.

1. The resolution is about zombies, not medicine. Just because "zombie" is in the name of it doesn't make it the same thing. Cigarettes are sometimes called Cancer sticks. That doesn't mean cigarettes actually are cancer.

2. This violates rule three. He can only use an interpretation of zombie as long as it fits the general stereotype. Clearly the world dying from a Haitian neurotoxin isn't something we all think of when we hear of a zombie apocalypse.

Onto my case. He made two arguments

First he said Uprising isn't necessarily bad. Group this with his C1 and my nine responses.

Then he said the following: "my opponent offers no evidence to either back up is claims; nor to link them to the resolution."

1. My evidence was from I Robot, which he never denied was a reliable interpretation of a Robot uprising. I give examples from there to show the capabilities an uprising would have.

Also he dropped all of my arguments for robots anyway, so they should be counted true regardless.

2. If robots have all these capabilities that I listed and he dropped, then clearly if they were to revolt against humanity they would be more disastrous. Thats resolution link, should have been fairly obvious.

Briefly over my case in general:

My opponent dropped the following arguments

Robots use weapons
Robots more effective with weapons
Robots better range than zombies
Robots use vehicles
Robots avoid damage
Robots cut off human food/water supply
Robots use biological weapons
Robots multiply faster
Robots repair themselves
Robots not limited by geographics

In other words, my entire case went unanswered.

Now against the con's speech in general.

He violates rule 5, which states that "Con must give arguments for zombies and against bots". He has not given any arguments for zombies. His only offensive contention was about medicine in Haiti, which has been proven nontopical.
And once again, he has not debated the resolution at hand. Rather than have what should have been a very fun debate about two hypothetical scenarios, with plenty of ground for both sides, he tried to win based off semantics of "Apocalypse" and trying to change "Robot Uprising" to something good for humanity.

Finally, outside of his semantical argument, my entire case was dropped.

For all of these reasons I must urge a pro vote.




Sadly there has been a gross amount of mis-understanding that has greatly upset my opponent. Both Blackvoid and I have spoken in the confidence of a private message, and I have said my piece in the comments section; so hopefully at this point in time and beyond, we will be able to debate this a civil non-passive aggressive manner that both I and my opponent are not only capable of, but owe to each other as debaters.

That said, I will simply follow my opponent's arguments straight down and show that a Zombie Apocalypse would be far more detrimental to humanity than a robot uprising.

C1: Robot Uprising-
First I want to point that here is the point in which my opponent misinterpreted my argumentation and analysis as semantic definition; First before I even get into my analysis that a robot uprising would not have negative connotation for human beings, I offer the three laws of robotics as presented in the book by Isaac Asimov. Sadly it would appear that the movie adaptation of this book is much different. I have never even seen this movie, thus it's actually abusive to simply assume I know what happens in this movie. Point being a robot uprising, while is may have definitive negative effects on other species or creatures; humans are not in direct harm. In all reality, the environment is not in danger of being destroyed by humanity, so the claim that robots would kill off humanity to protect future generations is far-fetched at best. Not that it actually matters since my opponent has not presented this argument, but simply vaguely mentioned it, so I won't use too much space trying to defend an argument that hasn't been made.
As for my opponent's multiplicative of definitions; these are irrelevant. I am arguing that a robot uprising would not be bad for Humanity; I don't ever claim that there would not be negative effects for another species, or society. My exact words in C1 where as follows "as prior stated, the term my opponent has chosen in the resolution (uprising) is not one of direct negative connotation to humanity, but simply indicates some form of robotic revolution." Now where-in of revolution, violence can (and most likely will) occur the point is that humans are not on the receiving end of the violence. Thus in terms of weight a robot uprising will automatically fall below a zombie apocalypse until warranted otherwise by my opponent.

The real issue arises when we realize that my opponent never even attempts to warrant that a robot uprising would be more detrimental than a zombie apocalypse; Note that he uses his first speech to establish what robots are capable of, and the majority of his second speech both demonizing me, and stressing the definition of "uprising". And for that we can simply refer to my rebuttal in the prior paragraph.

All the same, the point remains that my opponent isn't arguing the clash behind the issue at hand. For instance, where this debate's resolution entitled "Chemical Warfare is more deadly to mankind than Physical Warfare" then the object of debate necessary would not be discussing why chemical weapons are so deadly, but it would be discussing why Chemical warfare is more harmful to mankind. Making a direct cross-application of this model, we see that my opponent has argued robot superiority, not how a robot uprising would be detrimental to mankind, or even how it would be more detrimental than a zombie apocalypse. He simply expands on the positive aspects of robots.

as for the impact calculus
1. This is not a debate about fictional occurrences. If it where, then there would be no way to prove anything, we would simply be referencing shows, movies, comic, and whatever else we where fans of. There would be nothing solid to use as a weighing mechanism; and accordingly the voting would come down to personal preference of zombies and robots.
2. Note my entire second contention where I give three links to Haitian Zombie Powder.
Time frame-
1. No refutation, he simply says I don't give a time-frame either. But the fact is that ZOMBIES ALREADY EXIST
2. It certainly is not, my opponent doesn't warrant this.
1. Extend all eleven defenses
2. I don't even offer any arguments regarding zombies in this contention; the entirety of my opponent's defenses is becoming "neither did he!"

C2: Zombie apocalypse-

Again this was framework, I simply extend my refutations in the upper half of C1 here; these are not definitions I offer, we all already know what apocalypse means thus my arguments will stand.
1. extend prior
2. extend prior
3. My opponent actually offers more for my case here than he has yet to do with the entirety of the argument for a Robot Uprising. I Don't claim that the world would instantly come to an end, but the phrase "a widespread rise of zombies hostile to human life" warrants a zombie apocalypse above a robot uprising. There need not be any further element that causes the zombies to attack and kill humans.

a. Haitian Zombie Powder
1. The end effect is that the people become Zombies; yes the medicine is the means for the people becoming zombies, but the fact that I offer a bright-line does not invalidate my point. It makes my point valid. And as for my opponent rebuttal about cancer, I defy him to show even one social article about cancer where neither cigarettes nor tobacco are mentioned. If he is able to do so, then this is a valid argument; otherwise this is blatant abuse.

2.This fits perfectly into the definition I offered in round one, to which my opponent openly agrees with. My opponent is getting to deep into the way the these people become zombies and completely ignoring the fact that they are zombies. The end result is the same either way, thus this logic my opponent presents is utterly invalid. This is a technique akin to "reject the Neg" he makes a broad claim out of frustration without ever actually warranting it.

As for my two arguments,
I will extend my rebuttals in contentions 1, just as my opponent has extended his arguments.

Second, he never offers a link to anything about I, Robot in his constructive speech. Second this is just a movie, and not viable in terms of magnitude that offer on the side for zombies.

Finally my opponent still pushes the logical fallacy that simply because a robot can kill humans that it would. So I want to extend my illustration regarding Chemical Warfare v.s. Physical Warfare. My opponent doesn't ever actually talk about a Robot Uprising, but instead he talks about why robots are so dangerous. Ultimately my opponent leaves the debating up to those of you reading this debate. He never makes any direct links, and instead simply lays the information out there.

I would also like to point to that my opponent never covers my impact calculus for contention 2.

Thus for all of these reasons presented, I urge a Con Vote; and I now hand the debate back over to my very capable opponent.
Debate Round No. 3


I agree with his opening paragraph. While I stand by my arguments strongly, I apologize if I appeared rude or over-aggressive in my previous speech.

C1: Robot uprising

First I will point out that I made 11 arguments as to why a robot uprising is clearly bad. Four of them went unanswered, so these are a priori reasons to flow this pro.

A. He dropped my first argument. Con still hasn't explained why an Uprising is the same thing as a revolution. His entire argument here is based around twisting the word revolution into a good thing. But as I stated, the topic references an Uprising, not a revolution.

B. Argument two went unanswered. My opponent knows what the topic is referencing, but ignored the clear interpretation regardless. By him avoiding the topic at hand, conduct must go pro.

C. Argument 8 was dropped; my interpretation of the resolution (Robot Uprising bad) is the most preferable.

D. Argument 10 was dropped. Go back to rule 1 in my opening round; it specifically references robots rebelling to destroy humanity. Clearly a bad thing for the human race.

Again, these are drops/concessions. Independent reasons to go pro on this issue.

Onto the arguments that were made.

First he calls me abusive for expecting him to have seen I Robot, as apparently he has only read some of the book, not the movie.

1. No, its not abusive to expect my opponent to know the facts about arguments he uses.

2. Robots rebel against humanity with force in the books as well, not just the movie. Clearly, no matter how he tries to look at this, the three laws do not protect us from an uprising.

Next, he says robots may rebel against other species, but not humans.

Extend my dropped argument 1 from above. The very first rule I give in round 1 literally says that robots are trying to destroy the human race. Flow this pro immediately as this argument was dropped.

Con: Humanity is not harming the environment, so robots wont rebel to stop this

Rather than list countless sources about how industrial pollution is contaminating the environment, I'll just point out that this argument had no warrant or logical reasoning behind it whatsoever.

Onto my proposed definitions.

Note that con has not disputed them, so count them as true.

Con: Regardless of my definitions, robots will only harm other species, not humanity.

Extend argument 7 on his C1. My accepted definition of Robot Uprising clearly stated that it is "a scenario in which AI's decide that humans are a threat...and try to destroy or enslave them."

Accepted definition clearly outlines harm to humanity, not insects or animals.

Then he says I am only building up robots, not saying that they're more destructive than zombies.

This is honestly the most blatantly false statement made yet. Look at my opening case. I give arguments in every paragraph about things zombies can't do. C1: Robots use weapons, zombies too dumb to. C1: Zombie horde easily killed by airborne vehicle. C2: Robots avoid damage, while zombies foolishly walk into onslaught of firepower. C3: Robots multiply faster than zombies. C4: Zombies can't cross oceans while robots can.

Listing unique advantages robots have over zombies shows they're more destructive. It is ridiculous to claim I only build up robots when I made points against zombies all over the pro case.

Extend this to his Physical vs Chemical warfare example; I gave arguments for one and against the other, fulfilling my burden.

Impact Calc


1. He claims this is not a debate about fictional occurrences.

Note that by saying this, he's essentially trying to make a debate about Zombies and robots, realistic.

First, I made the resolution. I know what its about; its about things that will likely not happen but are fun to hypothesize about. I think all viewers reading this know this as well.

But furthermore, remember how he's accepted my model of I Robot as a robot uprising. Clearly that is a fictional movie.

2. His "Haitian powder" still doesn't qualify as a zombie; I'll get to this later.


1. Haitian powder = not zombies, I'll get to this later.

2. This is a zombie (1). Does this exist now? No it does not. Neither does intelligent humanoid robots. Clearly fictional, and impossible to predict TF.


1. Group this with eleven C1 arguments.

2. I'm showing why robots are stronger than zombies here, pointing out how my arguments for why robots are stronger are based on reasoning rather than definitions.

C2: Zombie Apocalypse

Con: We all know what apocalypse means.

Yes, we know that Apocalypse by itself indicates world destruction. However, the resolution references a "Zombie" Apocalypse, which is not the same thing. When attached after the word Zombie, the term simply describes a group of them attempting to destroy humanity; it does not imply the world automatically being destroyed. Furthermore, since he never denied my given definition of it as viable, you can see clearly that the world isn't destroyed, the accepted definition doesn't mention it.

1 and 2: We agree these points come down to other arguments.

On three, he says that "I Don't claim that the world would instantly come to an end"

I quoted him directly in my previous speech showing him otherwise. Here is his exact words: "apocalypse, by sheer definition...points to global destruction". I cannot allow him to pretend like he didn't say things he clearly did.

Then he accepts my given definition, but says that it warrants a zombie apocalypse over a robot uprising. Small problem, he gives no analysis at all as to why thats true. Nowhere it the definition does it ever mention robots, so he can't just go and say that it warrants something that was never mentioned.

A. Haitian Zombie Powder

1. I concede this point, I apparently misinterpreted this argument a bit.

The argument is still invalidated because of the next one.

2. He says that this "Haitian powder" fits into his definition of Zombie

Here my opponent refutes an argument that was never made. I never argued that it didnt fit his definition, the point was that his entire argument violates my rule three by not being a general stereotype of zombies. As previously stated, when we think of a zombie apocalypse, clearly the world being infected by some herbs from Haiti is not the first thing that comes to mind. Since he attacked the wrong argument, consider this rule violation dropped and toss this argument about neurotoxins in Haiti out of the round. Also, a rule violation means conduct goes pro.


He says I dont offer a link to anything about I Robot (my model for a robot uprising) in my initial case.

Ridiculous claim; I referenced it three times. C1-A, C2-A, and C3-A all had references to I Robot. This is the second blatantly false claim that has been made about my constructive; I must wonder whether my initial case was actually read.

Then he says I Robot is just a movie.

Its been established that this a fictional debate. Contrary to what my opponent seems to believe, this is supposed to be about pop culture and movies.

To finish up with the on-case, I point out that by my accepted interpretation of the resolution, clearly robots are trying to destroy humanity. Also, he made no impact calculus in contention 2, I cant drop an argument that was never made.

Voting issues

1. His main argument all round has been Robot Uprising good, or not bad. But when he drops four of the arguments I make as to why it is bad, there's no way this doesn't flow pro.

2. Herbal powders in Haiti is not a general stereotype of zombies, which I stated he must follow in my rule three.

3. At the top of his C1 argument, he claims that he wasn't using semantics. Thats all he says; he never substantiates this claim one bit, and never shows us why this isn't semantics (probably because his whole argument clearly is). Therefore, at the point where Freeman has banned semantics for this tournament, this is an automatic win.

4. Con dropped all of my unique advantages robots have over zombies described in my opening case.

Thanks to Hello-Orange for the debate.



I will keep with convienence, and just argue straight down the flow.

C1:Robot Uprising
Itis important to note that in the realm of this kind of debate we are not arguing in terms of the most arguments; but we are arguing in terms of magnitude, probability, and believiability. Thus it really wouldn't matter if my opponent made 100 arguments and I only handled 1 of them, so long as the one I did win was of greater magnitude I would win.

I have already conceded to the term "Uprising" My opponent is beating a dead horse. The fact is that after having been presented with an obvious flaw, he has yet to prove that this would be detrimental to humanity beyond referencing a single movie, and a picture of California Governer Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

My opponent has yet to argue a robot uprising, but the is he has still simply been asserting solely robots.

He has yet to warrant this scenario above a zombie apocalypse; but instead he is simply arguing robots as a whole.

Simply referencing something does not make it to be a valid argument in a debate. I could make a faulty claim that Zombies are bad and want to eat brains, while referencing several drawings of the matter [1] but it doesn't prove that a zombie apocalypse would be worse than a robot uprising.

Again, I have never seen I, Robot, nor have I ever claimed to have seen this movie; my referene was based in the book I,Robot.

Again, simply making a claim doesn't validate it.

My enviroment argument was a correlation causation fallacy argument; yet my opponent simply refuses to refute this point. I do ot have the BOP of warranting this argument, but it is my opponent's job to warrant that our enviroment is in imminent danger. At the point my opponent simply drops this argument, The sole warrant behind robots attacking humanity falters.

Ultimately the point I really want to drive home is this; My opponent has not argued the superiority of a Robot Uprising, nor the inferiority of a Zombie Apocalypse. He simply throws Pro and Con argument about Robots and Zombies, and expects whomever is reading to make the connections for him.
Not to mention, never once does my opponent refute this although I have brought it up during every round of this debate.

Impact Cal-
The logic my opponent uses here is simply him saying that since we wrote up the framework he automatically knows everything about the subject matter involved. Yet he neither makes the statement that this debate is completely fictional at the beginning, (Had he done so we wouldn't have had the gross amount of misunderstanding we've had in the first place) And in regards to his rules 3, and 5, he is being utterly abusive to me with this argumentation.

My opponent has not brought up Haitian Zombie Powder as being illigitimate before now, and again in response to rule 3, I have done nothing wrong.

Again rule three

There is no link. And so far as I know, the number 1 in parenthesis doesn't quantify as a zombie.

Exceedingly vauge, and many of the arguments have been utterly debunked.

Again my opponent never covers a Robot Uprinsing v.s. a Zombie Apocalypse; he covers Zombies v.s. Robots.

C2: Zombie Apocalypse

+This definition debate has been beaten to death by my opponent. My former logic in round 2 is still upheld; I would also like to point out the irony of my opponent not wanting semantics in the debate, yet he has used then to such extremes here.

+Haitian zombie Powder+

+ My opponent never tells us why those affected by Haitian Zombie powder do not fall into the general category of a zombie. The way a person becomes a zombie is not even something that has a consistent linear criteria.

Ultimately my opponent never disproves my argument here.

+Final thoughts+
I proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a Zombie Apocalypse would be worse for humanity than a robot uprising. Whereas my opponent has only come back each time with either semantic argumentation, or fiery attacks at me hidden as matter-of-fact statements.
Not to mention after spending a good majority of his speech time stressing the definition of Uprising, he defaults to win various arguments through Loopholes, and various miscellaneous gimmicks.

My opponent even goes so far as to say that I've broken rules and ought be demoted in conduct; First, I have broken no rule. I have simply made solid, and realistic arguments pertinent to a society beyond those who have seen I, Robot; or any media movie for that matter. Yet my opponent simply asks you all to discredit my arguments with-out ever offering a valid warrant.

At this point, I should give voters; But I won't waste your time by trying to re-iterate this round in only a few characters. you have all read this debate by this point, and I urge you to look to reason; Please vote Con.

A big thank you to my Blackvoid as well.

Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
Posted by AustaSuraRex 7 years ago
OK listen i think it would be much better to have a zombie apocolyps because they are basically easy to kill
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
forget about it.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
The RFD debate, what specifically is the resolution?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Ok, what's the resolution?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
What to debate about the RFD's?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
I'm so disagreeing with these RFD's :|
Ah well, it's rude to argue them.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by detachment345 7 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con tried using ridiculous wordplay
Vote Placed by american5 7 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 Checkmark--1 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both sides were good yet their were things missed on both sides
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 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 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: You should have used the matrix... zombies could never do that lol, the robots in matrix used human life as an energy source
Vote Placed by CiRrK 7 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok, so I vote Pro on the 11 extended warrants as to why a Robot Uprising would be worse. Since the implied rules of the tournament was to avoid topicality arguments, there is no offense on the Con side.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes an uninteresting semantic argument. The challenge makes the intended meaning clear. this is a tournament debate requiring I give all points to the winer, otherwise it would just be arguments.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Robots can do everything zombies can and more as proven by Pro
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: "I'm sure that neither myself nor Hello-Orange plan on using unfair interpretations to win. " guess you were wrong, note by the way there is a zeroth law of robotics which allows robots to harm/kill a human(s) to prevent harm to more humans.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 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 Checkmark--1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con did semantics Arguments: Con had more convincing arguments Sources: Con used ( as a source in the last round.