Opponent picks topic.

RebuttalsOriginal posts are underlined & bolded, opponent's responses are bolded.First Post:Machine guns are much more effective, being able to provide a fatal shot with their power if they hit the target's head.Recoil, distance, and the difficulty of aiming all render this an unlikely occurrence, especially since shooters are trained specifically NOT to aim for the head (it's a small target that moves more than the rest of the body).Distance of a Cutlass outweighs a machine gun? No way! It's common sense. And how does the head move more than the feet?Machine guns can also shoot much faster than a cutlass can swing, so the number of bullets, each delivering a fatal shot strongly outweighs the little cutlass, which could be destroyed in seconds.The second half of this sentence makes no sense, so I will be responding to the first half. If the shooter is firing on semi auto, considering how long it takes to line up a shot, the number of zombies they can kill in a given period of time will be no greater than how many a blade wielder can kill. If the weapon is being fired fully automatically, then the waste of bullets renders their kill time even longer in all likelihood. As the cutlass hits zombies, its blade becomes blunt quickly and thus is rendered useless.Each bullet, considering the number of zombies, can easily hit at least one zombie. Imagine you holding a cutlass, and thousand of zombies around you. Is it really effective? Of course not. IF there are thousands of zombies surrounding you, you are beyond saving. Fortunately, this is an incredibly unlikely situation. That said, in terms of clearing through a crowd, a blade would be far more effective due to the fact that close quarters are a guarantee, and that the sound a bullet makes would draw the rest of the horde in. {Apocalypse: an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale.}With that in mind, there has to be many, many zombies.Second Post:As long as firearms do not break, there is nearly no chance of effort and equipment to maintain.This completely ignores the fact that firearms need to be routinely disassembled, cleaned and lubricated to keep them functional. I'd also like to point out that this violates the terms of the debate, as it is completely factually incorrect.http://www.wikihow.com......But so do swords. A blunt one won't work, and considering the number of zombies, of course the cutlass will have to be resharpened every minute.And, handguns are very easy to operate as they are very small.Handguns are actually quite difficult to aim, especially outside of close ranges due to the way in which they are held (with arm[s] extended rather than being supported against the shoulder). This also makes the recoil difficult to control. Mastery clearly exhibits that they have no experience with handling firearms. Close range, but not too close, that's the point. So zombies won't invade you but you have adequate closeness.A Shashka is much better than cutlass, This is an unsubstantiated claim. In my second contention, I prove that cutlasses are more effective in a zombie apocalypse than other blades and can easily cut through human skull or personal protective equipment.As can nearly any other cutting sword, although cutlasses are particularly effective due to their shorter, broader blades (as opposed to the shashka sabre, which has a longer, lighter blade).Actually, the information stated proves this.Every hit is certainly NOT a kill. It takes several hits for a cutlass. But for a Shashka it only takes one hit.Once again, Mastery makes an unsubstantiated, factually incorrect claim. As per the rules of the debate, they have effectively forfeited. A sharp, heavy sword length blade will almost always be capable of cutting through a limb or head. The cutlasses shortness and broadness makes it particularly good at this in close quarters.What is 'incorrect' is debatable. I could say you have broken the rules because a firearm is better than a cutlass. And, as shown in YOUR OWN VIDEO, a cutlass FAILS to cut through a piece of meat in one slash.Yes, the blade could be swung continuously but that exposes you to a likely chance of a self-hit.Unlikely, especially if the wielder has been trained. The sabre or cutlass, for example, is designed to be used with circular motion that allows it to be swung repeatedly.In R2 I have stated that it is the average person being evaluated. The average person is NOT trained.Conclusion I will be proving forward the sabre. The sabre is a cut and thrust weapon, unlike other swords, thus being able to both do point work and cut. In a sabre, draw-cutting is also automatic. A sabre can easily cut through limbs etc., as many tests have shown. The POB is close to the hand as well, and the long/medium sword length provides more distance than the short cutlass. A sabre does not require much experience to operate either, like many swords.Thank you for this debate.