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

I will keep with convienence, and just argue straight down the flow. C1:Robot Uprising Itis important to note that in the realm of this kind of debate we are not arguing in terms of the most arguments; but we are arguing in terms of magnitude, probability, and believiability. Thus it really wouldn't matter if my opponent made 100 arguments and I only handled 1 of them, so long as the one I did win was of greater magnitude I would win. I have already conceded to the term "Uprising" My opponent is beating a dead horse. The fact is that after having been presented with an obvious flaw, he has yet to prove that this would be detrimental to humanity beyond referencing a single movie, and a picture of California Governer Arnold Schwarzeneggar. My opponent has yet to argue a robot uprising, but the is he has still simply been asserting solely robots. He has yet to warrant this scenario above a zombie apocalypse; but instead he is simply arguing robots as a whole. Simply referencing something does not make it to be a valid argument in a debate. I could make a faulty claim that Zombies are bad and want to eat brains, while referencing several drawings of the matter [1] but it doesn't prove that a zombie apocalypse would be worse than a robot uprising. Again, I have never seen I, Robot, nor have I ever claimed to have seen this movie; my referene was based in the book I,Robot. Again, simply making a claim doesn't validate it. My enviroment argument was a correlation causation fallacy argument; yet my opponent simply refuses to refute this point. I do ot have the BOP of warranting this argument, but it is my opponent's job to warrant that our enviroment is in imminent danger. At the point my opponent simply drops this argument, The sole warrant behind robots attacking humanity falters. Ultimately the point I really want to drive home is this; My opponent has not argued the superiority of a Robot Uprising, nor the inferiority of a Zombie Apocalypse. He simply throws Pro and Con argument about Robots and Zombies, and expects whomever is reading to make the connections for him. Not to mention, never once does my opponent refute this although I have brought it up during every round of this debate. Impact Cal- Probability The logic my opponent uses here is simply him saying that since we wrote up the framework he automatically knows everything about the subject matter involved. Yet he neither makes the statement that this debate is completely fictional at the beginning, (Had he done so we wouldn't have had the gross amount of misunderstanding we've had in the first place) And in regards to his rules 3, and 5, he is being utterly abusive to me with this argumentation. My opponent has not brought up Haitian Zombie Powder as being illigitimate before now, and again in response to rule 3, I have done nothing wrong. Timeframe Again rule three There is no link. And so far as I know, the number 1 in parenthesis doesn't quantify as a zombie. Magnitude Exceedingly vauge, and many of the arguments have been utterly debunked. Again my opponent never covers a Robot Uprinsing v.s. a Zombie Apocalypse; he covers Zombies v.s. Robots. C2: Zombie Apocalypse +This definition debate has been beaten to death by my opponent. My former logic in round 2 is still upheld; I would also like to point out the irony of my opponent not wanting semantics in the debate, yet he has used then to such extremes here. +Haitian zombie Powder+ + My opponent never tells us why those affected by Haitian Zombie powder do not fall into the general category of a zombie. The way a person becomes a zombie is not even something that has a consistent linear criteria. Ultimately my opponent never disproves my argument here. +Final thoughts+ I proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that a Zombie Apocalypse would be worse for humanity than a robot uprising. Whereas my opponent has only come back each time with either semantic argumentation, or fiery attacks at me hidden as matter-of-fact statements. Not to mention after spending a good majority of his speech time stressing the definition of Uprising, he defaults to win various arguments through Loopholes, and various miscellaneous gimmicks. My opponent even goes so far as to say that I've broken rules and ought be demoted in conduct; First, I have broken no rule. I have simply made solid, and realistic arguments pertinent to a society beyond those who have seen I, Robot; or any media movie for that matter. Yet my opponent simply asks you all to discredit my arguments with-out ever offering a valid warrant. At this point, I should give voters; But I won't waste your time by trying to re-iterate this round in only a few characters. you have all read this debate by this point, and I urge you to look to reason; Please vote Con. A big thank you to my Blackvoid as well. Sources: [1] http://www.google.com...