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

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 Probability- 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. Magnitude- 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.