Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

I will begin by refuting my opponent's case and then proceed to construct my own. Response to Contention 1: The Second Law of Thermodynamics What my opponent is referring to is entropy, and his definition is slightly off. (Additionally, the law of conservation of energy is the first law of thermodynamics, not the second). The Second Law states that if no energy enters or exits a system, the potential energy will always be less than the initial state (paraphrased) [1]. In this debate, I am arguing for the realistic idea of fast-moving zombies over slow ones, not that the fast zombie has to constantly be fast. A fast-moving zombie will eventually degrade into a slow-moving zombie, but in the initial state, fast-moving zombies seem far more realistic than slow-moving ones for reasons I'll discuss later. To refute my opponent's first point, I point out that zombies do consume human flesh, thus still allowing for the infection to spread. Now, it can be pointed out that a virus cannot metabolise (turn food into chemical energy). However, research has recently revealed that viruses can generate electrical energy from mechanical energy [2], thus establishing that viruses are capable of generating energy - something long thought impossible. Additionally, bacterial infections are already capable of generating chemical energy [3]. Since my opponent did not specify that the zombie infection had to be viral, I can use bacteria as a counterpoint to the law of entropy. Furthermore, my opponent is correct - the body can use itself if all else fails, and I shall explain this as well. Response to Contention 2: Stress Again, I have to argue only for the probability of faster zombies being more realistic than slower ones at any point in time. The longer the time period, the less realistic fast zombies appear to be. But in the initial and early stages of a zombie apocalypse, fast-moving zombies are more realistic than slow ones. At this point in time, the human body is still in as good a shape as it was as when it was alive. Since reanimation generally occurs fairly quickly, the body has not had much time to decompose. The zombie's muscles and joints and ligaments are not yet weakened or failing and thus would still allow the zombie to move at a faster speed. Self-atrophy here supports my claim that fast-moving zombies are more realistic in the early stages of an outbreak. And, as I have shown, there are other methods for zombies to gain chemical energy. Response to Contention 3: Energy Efficiency When have zombies ever done anything efficiently? The most efficient way (or, I should say, a more efficient way) for a zombie to kill people would be to pick up a machine gun and open fire (which has seldom happened). With reanimation, only a small portion of the brain is reactivated. Zombies do not possess the capacity for the rational thought that sick humans do and thus do not consider remaining sedentary. Additionally, the virus (assuming it is a viral infection) can contain vast amounts of energy [4]. A virus capable of reanimating the dead would be unlike any currently known, and its true proportions remain mysterious. Furthermore, most zombies remain sedentary until they detect a human presence anyway. A zombie with nothing to hunt gains nothing by running around. That zombies tend to wait for a human stimulus is not relevant to whether the zombie is fast or slow. I have inadvertently woven bits of my case into my rebuttals, but I'll restate it here. Contention 1: In the early stages of an outbreak, faster zombies are more realistic than slower ones. As I have said, a zombie is a reanimated human body. At the time of reanimation (depending on the length of time between death and reanimation), the body remains in relatively good condition and thus is still capable of allowing the zombie to sprint or run. Now, the most common counterpoint to this is rigor mortis [5].However, as the chart demonstrates, rigor mortis builds and disperses over time. A fast zombie would still be fast before and after rigor mortis. Only during its peak would a zombie be slowed. At onset and resolution, a zombie would be as fast as the human was in life. mouseover="Over(this);" on mouseout="Out(this);" src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3253/108387-3253-zqyum-b.jpg" alt="" /> In the event that the picture does not show up (I'm new with posting pictures), my source 5 leads to that same chart. As I have demonstrated, zombies do have methods of generating chemical energy (self-atrophy proves valid for at least a while if nothing else). In order to disprove the resolution, again, I only need to sucessfully defend faster zombies being more realistic during a portion of the zombie apocalypse. I believe I have successfully done so, and I'll hand the debate back to my opponent. I look forward to his responses in the next round! [1] http://www2.estrellamountain.edu... [2] http://newscenter.lbl.gov... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[5] http://zombieresearchsociety.com...