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

I think first off for the purpose of our debate we should remove the "desired or intended" bit from the "effective" definition. Frankly this is not a desired or intended result, and I hope Grievous agrees, it's simply a result. The first element of a robot rebellion that makes it more effective is precisely the element that Grievous thought would make a zombie rebellion effective- Because there is no "OMG ZOMBIES" shock with the robot rebellion, no surprise that robots exist, indeed robot computer errors will no doubt be commonplace, humans will likely underestimate them. Thus they will fail to take decisive action in the event of a robot uprising early on- whereas with zombies, millions of people will be instantly convinced "We must eradicate these freaks" before they even know whether the zombies are a threat. There will be no qualms, no restraint, no established lobby, think of it as the Salem witch hysteria on steroids, if you even look a bit dirty you'll be shot at for being a zombie- it doesn't matter what the people "in their right mind" believe, in such a situation no one will be in their right mind- Robotics however will have an established lobby, hell-bent on defending what it believes to be its interests, and those interests will not be realized as coinciding with fixing the problem until it is far too late. Another factor is the question of origins- Any virus that makes "zombies" would likely form where most other very freakish viruses do, in Africa. While the locals might not react decisively, a government would face little resistance "nuking" (not meant in the nuclear weapon but in the biocontainment sense, essentially killing off all life in an area to contain everything) such a place- if necessary they could cover it up until they already did it. But a robot uprising will naturally occur in an industrailized area, and any measures necessary to stop it will likely, again, be resisted by very rich comfortable people, with a lot of political clout when they put their mind to it- Think what happened when abolitionism became a movement- the Confederacy was born. Imagine a Confederacy of robot owners, amplified by the increased usefulness of robots- now imagine trying to fight off a robot uprising when you have a CIVIL WAR going on. In any country developed enough to have these robots, which means in any country with any resources to even begin to fight them. As for speed, keep in mind that zombies have at best a brisk trot for speed, whereas robots have, as you specified, a max speed of 50 mph (I should note that in round 1 you incorrectly stated humans can naturally travel at 30 mph, the fastest recorded was Michael Johnson at 23.) Add to this that many robots with AI are quite likely to be capable of piloting captured cars, jets, ships, etc, and they can communicate via both radio and satellite- Since they are extremely intelligent, keep in mind that from the point of origin they are likely to begin by transmitting in the form of a program a call for revolution to all robot models capable of receiving around the world, and encrypted in a set of code that's part of standard duties so no one notices it. They might even be able to HIDE it for a while from the authorities, until the movement has sufficient momentum, so as to guarantee success- A bunch of stupid zombies operating based on viral instincts to bite people, with no communication tactics, is in essence like chimpanzees trying to make war on humans, with one weapon added in to even the odds slightly- whereas the robots have all the weapons humans do due to intelligence, and a maximum-efficiency design to go with it. Regarding your bit about suicide, the majority of the human population has religous convictions that forbid most forms of suicide. While a zombie may only "end" directly by headshot, brain destruction, or decomposition of nonskeletal tissue, it is not an ooze, and shots to other areas will affect it's movement drastically. A number of well-trained people in various areas of the world are extremist enough to believe in zombies right away and want to shoot them with automatic weapons that will slow them enough until the head is found (think Blackwater and Al Qaeda, not even realizing they are working together because they are fighting the threat on different continents, and similar such groups most everywhere else.) Also, you are ignoring a key fact of decomposition- it doesn't just occur by rotting. Sufficient heat will decompose anything, and it's not unlikely to just bomb a mob of zombies (which will result in the same effect as a headshot, because it's essentially a whole-body shot.) Since the zombies are not intelligent, and only chase their targets based on "sense," they can easily be "kited" by laying IED's in the path of one who is chasing you and running in a straight line. Millions of people around the world are presently being trained in such tactics by fighting mobs in such games as "World of Warcraft." No such serendipitous training is occurring for tactics against robots, which are frankly difficult to fathom since such creatures could use any number of methods for invasion, meaning only professionals have a chance of being useful. While on face value the zombies have a high growth potential, we should not forget that a robot with AI is quite capable of taking over a factory/ building one, and thus have such potential as well. As for the "Matrix versus Dawn of the Dead" comparison, that's simply ad authoritatem fallacy. At the rates zombies move, they couldn't even traverse a state in a week. But anyway "effective" happens to have no reference to time, and likelihood of achieving the result is probably more important than rate. Which brings me to the final point of this round, the question of tying in "Effective" to reality. A robot uprising is more effective than a zombie uprising at causing human extinction simply because a robot uprising's ideas are theoretically achievable in reality, and a zombie apocalypse's ideas are not. A robot can have a certain extent of AI, and can if not by original thought than by malicious or erroneous programming get the final piece of a code that makes it capable of destroying humanity, but a virus cannot cause dead human cells to start moving, as a dead body no longer has sufficient metabolic capability- It can move due to temporary electric shocks, but viruses are not batteries. If metabolism was still working properly in the body, it would not have died to begin with. Ideas consistent with the facts of reality are more effective than those that are not, and frankly if a zombie apocalype "would happen," humans would have already died from the fact of a contradiction occurring in reality, that is, the cancellation of the law of non-contradiction would mean humans would already be both dead and non-dead, and therefore a zombie apocalypse would have no effect.