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

First before we begin to debate this issue, we must look to what exactly the resolution states, "A Robot (Uprising) would be more disasterous to (humanity) than a Zombie (Apocalypse)" There are three key words here, 1. Uprising; which does not indicate negative connotation for those outside the robot community. 2. Humanity; the group who is receiving the negative impacts. 3. Apocalypse; meaning an end to the world. When debating such a resolution, these words are key in interpretation and analysis of the clash that will take place so as this debate does not come down to being a debate of personal opinions or one based on pop-culture. Second it is important to note that when debating a topic such as this, where the two opposing stances are in direct conflict; these two scenarios are only probable as something with any weight to it when we realize that they must happen at the same time and be weighed directly against each other. The side who proves that their stance advocates the most negative impacts for humanity will then be the winner. That said, here are my first few contentions C1 Robot Uprising- As Isaac Asimov outlines in his wildly successful novel "I, Robot" there are three rules that all anthropomorphic robots must adhere to[1]. a. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. b. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. c. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. - 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. Whether this indicates great strides in the field of robotic studies, perfection of artificial intelligence, or even robots being given civil right. This simply indicates that the area of robotics would be improved. so at the point that my opponent does not show us that these uprisings would be negative for humanity; they lose. -Where there to be a robot uprising, it would not have negative impacts for human beings; but would simply improve robot's social status; robots would still live in peace with humanity, and even protect humanity. So linking this back to the fact that both a robot uprising, and a zombie apocalypse would need to happen at the same time to see which would be more detrimental to humanity, we see that a robot uprising would actually be an incredibly good thing for humanity, as the robots would protect humanity from the zombies. -Finally, in terms of probability, time frame, and magnitude (as per CiRrK's request); Probability- since artificial intelligence has not been crafted beyond novelty for anthropomorphic robots; we can only seriously consider a robot uprising in theory. Time Frame- my opponent offer none, thus he forfeits this as of now Magnitude- None, as in theory a robot uprising would be a positive thing for humanity; and in reality it has yet to happen, and we aren't even close to realizing this. C2 Zombie apocalypse- Again let's link back to the tree key words of the resolution; "apocalypse" by sheer definition, this is something of negative connotation, as it points to global destruction; something that would at the extreme least cause minor inconveniences to mankind, and at the extreme most cause complete extinction of all life-forms. Thus in theory, I've already won this debate because of the resolution's wording. However if I ended here that wouldn't be any fun; so let's look at some further issues of zombies in pragmatic reality a. Haitian zombie power- First, Hatian zombie power is a "medicine" that exists in haitian voodoo[2][3][4] practices, that can destroy a human being's mind, turning them into a perpetual slave. This is done with various neurological toxins that can destroy both mental capacity, free will, and bodily functionings. The negative impacts of Haitian Zombie Powder in the status quo are, to name a few: - Sex Slavery - Human Vegetation - Civil Right Violations - etc. Obviously none of these things are good in the small scale happenings of this existing solely in Haiti; thus where there to be a zombie apocalypse, and everyone where to affected with Haitian zombie powder, it would be the end of society as we know it. Those whose bodies didn't shut down immediately due to neurotoxins would all die from starvation, (as they wouldn't even be able to realize that where hungry and needed to eat to maintain homeostasis) or would be completely aware as their body slowly decayed from starvation. Now no matter how you look at this situation, it will be negative for the entirety of society (minus a few suicidal individuals, or otherwise mentally disturbed members of society). Now going onto my opponent's arguments, I only have two rather broad attacks for now; 1. My opponent actually references "I, Robot" as a model for the debate; thus they accept the three laws of robotics that Isaac Asimov lays out for us. At the point we realize this, there is nothing in the arguments my opponent lays that would indicate a Robot Uprising would be a bad thing for humanity 2. My opponent's constructive case doesn't actually cover the resolution, but instead only covers the positive points that robots have, and the negative points that Zombies have. But not only that, aside from a single link to a picture of the terminator, my opponent offers no evidence to either back up is claims; nor to link them to the resolution. Thus, my opponent is non-sequitar; you have not ground to vote on him. Vote Con as I have proven a Zombie apocalypse is worse than a Robot Uprising. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://science.howstuffworks.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.iupui.edu...