A chainsaw is the worst weapon in a zombie apocalypse

Onto her arguments. 1)Scissors rebuttal. //I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you// This debate is not, was not, and will never be about the forethought or realistically of said weapon chosen, so my opponent's argument is invalid. We are discussing which is worse, my weapons, or the chainsaw. The fact that we would not likely use these weapons does NOT come into play here. If it did, my opponent should have specified. She did not. //No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you. // My opponent's sole argument saying that a pair of scissors is better than a chainsaw rests on these two assumptions. 1) It is sharp. I won't contend this, but I will say that a chainsaw, even with the rotary blades not power up, still is incredibly sharp, sharper than a pair of scissors, anyways. 2)You can kill at least one or two zombies with it. She makes this claim despite the fact that I posited you would DIE while trying to kill a zombie. I also made an argument saying that a pair of scissors, in the hands of a normal human, would not be able to penetrate a zombie's skull, and destroy the brain. She has not rebutted this. Also, please take note that a chainsaw would be able to kill the same amount of zombies a pair of scissors would, if not more, with less risk to the user, because it gives more reach. 2) Incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water rebuttal. //First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run. // But it is not. It is a tiny plastic pipette with 5 micro moles of liquid water. Not an empty cup. This invalidates the rest of your arguments concerning this, but I'll rebut them anyways. //Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. // We are talking about the worst weapon in the world, not the worst distraction. //When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate,/ / When did teammates ever come into play? You should've specified this. //you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it. // Do you have any proof regarding this? I would think, given that the zombie is practically dead, and it's nerve endings are destroyed, it would not feel a tiny pipette bouncing of its head. //But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising? // We are not talking whether the items in question are realistic or not. We are discussing if they would be effective in combat against a zombie horde. 3) Golf ball rebuttal //The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful. // That would be all fine and dandy if we were talking about a golf ball AND gold club. But we are only talking about a golf club. Argument negated. My opponent has not offered once piece of evidence showing that her weapon is worse than mine. I have shown time and again why my choice of weapons are terrible to use. I think it is clear who is winning.