A Zombie Apocalypse would be More Effective in causing Living Mans extinction than a Robot Uprising

" I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is." Premises have intentions and desires? " I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man" Not if it occurs earlier in the invasion, which my claim (the claim you've just conceded) asserts. It eradicates a large number, but is more devastating to the zombies than the humans, and thus has the potential to save the humans from eradication, as there are people who will be clean. "But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting." That would be several years before the robotic rebellion, and thus, the fervor will have to have calmed by the time it came around to the rebellion itself (which would lead many to say "You already claimed this once, why should it come true now? It didn't make a disaster then." For an analogy, many people are "aware" of the dangers of global warming, (whether true or not), but that hasn't put a dent in oil use. ". Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase," See the debate's premises of "They can die from Electro-Magnetic Pulses, Severe Crushing, and substantial Firepower that destroys their frame (heavy guns, missiles, armor piercing bullets, etc), and any of natures own weapons, in particularly rust and water damage to electronics." None of those possibilities of death included a pre-engineered "weak point." "As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them." How many people are aware of how to cure cancer? Or are you arguing that we are not all aware of cancer? " As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected" How does a virus arrive simultaneously in multiple places? It doesn't evolve simultaneously in two different places, everything must of necessity have an origin point. The debate's premises state they will "spread worldwide," implying an origin point, and obviously implying that that is if nothing is done to stop them. You cannot spread without starting somewhere. "Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people." No, because in the debate's premises they instinctively seek out their victims, directly, that is they "sense" the living or whatever. They cannot walk "among" people, anyone close either fights, runs, or is attacked. Have you ever seen a dead person, especially one that is dead by attack and has not been tidied up for people? In a movie maybe? There is no possibility for infiltration there, both due to the appearance and the nature of the zombie. "This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people." The Union lost more soldiers in the Civil War than the Confederacy did. This does not mean that the Union lost the Civil War. It just means the starting numbers of available soldiers to lose were different. Zombies start on short numbers. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me." You are ignoring the fact that the robots are intelligent, which invalidates this line of reasoning. They were obviously designed that way for a purpose, which means by default many industrial functions are under their control, and many communication functions, and the part I addressed in which they are able to DISGUISE THEIR EARLY TASKS. The virus I described in which the first robot rebel programs his ideas by transmission into other, which works similarly to modern computer viruses except it would be of robot origin and of course more complex, could easily be disguised in a trojan program as a routine task. Data is emitted in this world by the trillions of bytes each minute, and in a world with AI robots even more so. No intelligence agency of any sort could even begin to parse a fraction of that for encrypted programming, especially in such a short amount of time. All the robots have to do is find a few "leaky" places in corporate and government bureaucracy (think the Enrons of the robot business) slipping out parts, and slowly build their factories and bases in abandoned locations. Easy enough task, and "nuking" only applies early in invasions, and only if you know what's going on. No self-respecting robot will let you know by high-tech means, and any low-tech spies stumbling upon the secret location can easily be eliminated. "These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base." That particularly is a definite no-no, at least in terms of centralization. There are likely to be several independent manufacturers, each with their own computers, and each robot owner is likely to want the software sufficient for operation on his computer (and on the robot of course), and any design will likely tap into the general electricity supply (which means that any attempt to combat robots via this route means that the government would have to cut off it's own energy sources. Keep in mind power is available just about everywhere. So is the internet which means so are computers. " Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others)." That's why we imported all the melamine-laced pet food from china? The lead-laced toys? Inspection and competent inspection are not the same thing, the latter almost never occurs when government and industry collide. "Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use." Why on earth would most attacks be indoors? Who would let a zombie in their house? Robots maybe, since they are already used, but zombies? Not likely, especially since zombies, remember, are not intelligent, and therefore are more likely to try to pound to door down than ring the doorbell (which means of course people will look out through the window, and realize, while the door holds, that they should call the police.) Some doors aren't sturdy, but if anyone's door pops off that suddenly, they'll run out the back at more than a brisk trot. If you've ever been in a mosh pit, you know crowd's dissolve around "crazy people" which the zombies would be the epitome of. Length violation, continued in comments.