Zombies are more dangerous than Vampires.

I’ll get right into it…REBUTTALS“Always stay in night time. ”If vampires were to be travelling constantly to avoid the sun, I imagine the humans would be much safer. “Your argument sucks…”Let me reiterate and expand, since I don’t think your response does my point any justice. A zombie has no differentiation between hungry and not hungry. They just keep eating until their stomach bursts, then they keep eating. If they spot live prey, they will stop eating the corpse they are munching on and chase the living. A zombie will not kill other zombies, even if doing so will result in eating more. They have been seen to shove each other out of the way or groan loudly at each other, but they never kill each other. These are very important when compared to a vampire…A vampire has the intelligence to think about keeping a supply of blood for the future. In both a vampire and a zombie apocalypse-situation, you’re likely to come to a point where everybody but a few groups of survivors are dead, feasted on by the undead. However, only in the vampire situation do you have the possibility of vampires mass-murdering other vampires. This seems like the logical thing to do, for these logical, greedy, powerful and merciless creatures. I know I’m hypothesising but I did cite an example of this last round. “Zombies are easy prey for animals”I strongly disagree. Zombies eat animals, just as they do humans. Obviously people are their prey of choice, but take Episode 1 of Walking Dead; a horse is torn apart and consumed by the zombie horde. The reason you don’t see zombies eating animals is because they have the sense to avoid them. “Temperature”Again, I disagree. Zombies are not your normal corpse. We don’t see zombies exploding as my opponent suggests. Take the classic Romero zombie movie “Dawn of the Dead”; the survivors stay in the mall for weeks. The only thing that happened to the zombies outside is that more of them came. I concede “Zombies can’t heal”“Zombies can’t get through barriers”I largely agree with my opponent. There are certainly many obstacles a zombie can’t pass BUT they are quite a force. They are capable or breaking down the door of your house and perhaps breaching a fence. I’m sure there is some physics to explain how many zombies it takes to get through x amount of resistance, but I’m sure the readers are familiar with it. I’ll add now that many vampire mythologies, both old and modern show vampires not being able to come into your home unless invited. I somehow doubt that would work on a zombie…“Haha, zombie, you can’t come in unless you’re invi—i--- AHHHHHH argh… *nom nom*”FINAL CONCLUSIONMy opponent clearly thinks that vampires are devastatingly more powerful than zombies, therefore a vampire apocalypse is more dangerous than a zombie one. This is simply not the case. In both situations, the population is going to be largely wiped out fairly quickly (or possibly enslaved, which is less dangerous than dying and becoming a zombie in my opinion). Most zombie movies suggest only a couple of weeks from outbreak until the world collapses. Vampires may sire and sire, but they cannot spread anywhere near as fast as zombies and it isn’t in their best interest to do so anyway. I accept that vampires could easily find and slaughter people much faster in the early parts of the hypothetical apocalypse, however a least some of the vampires must realise if they slaughter and slaughter, eventually there will be no blood to drink. They can then destroy the stupid, greedy and violent ones, if they choose. Zombies have no such hesitation. Nom nom nom. Regardless, we can see that both would come to a situation where there were only a few scattered humans left. And again, even at this point zombies are more dangerous, for the reasons I’ve already stated: People would be safe during the daytime. They wouldn’t have to fear one of their group’s members unexpectedly turning. The zombie apocalypse is clearly more dangerous than a pvssy vampire one.