The cause of a zombie apocalypse

My opponent fails to keep the same story throughout each of his arguments. One minor error, which should NOT be taken into consideration when voting is that "most epic debate on Debate. com" is false because it is actually Debate. org. I state it for my opponent's well being. Now, to contradict my opponent's argumentations, I shall offer a few definitions for clarification from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Brain - the organ of the body in the head that controls functions, movements, sensations, and thoughts Zombie - the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body Now, to my opponent's argument "When the zombies first take all of the food from the people with brains, the food will go into a storage area and be rationed in small amounts, but the zombies won"t like it. " (Round 2) Here, my opponent states that the zombies attack people with brains, which the reader can infer that a zombie is someone without a brain. He is following the definition that a zombie is the remains of a previous living body, and therefore does not have a brain. "Which will end with all of the resources destroyed, because a zombie thinks "if we can"t have it, why should they. " Now, my opponent states "because a zombie thinks. .. ." If zombies don't have brains, how can they possibly "think? " My opponent has an anomaly in his sequencing and arguments. "The zombie factor in my cause is not the living dead, it is the loss of intelligent reasoning" According to my opponent's statement, the loss of electricity would NOT even cause a zombie apocalypse. According to the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a zombie is a "reanimate a dead body. " How can Con's argument be true if they have never died? Insanity is not nearly the something as death, or becoming a zombie at all. Therefore, my opponents statements are once again a folly. "People alive after the loss of electricity (everyone) will try to conserve their current way of life. " None of, what my opponent considers, zombies are dead yet. Why do you compare zombies to "people alive" if they are both alive? So therefore my opponent is saying that all people, zombies or not, will try to conserve their current way of life. This challenge is a cause of a zombie apocalypse, not a cause of conserving humanity's resources. "Although the cause of the Apocalypse is lack of electricity, the mayhem comes from being without vital life sustaining resources such as food, water, and heat. " People have lived without electricity for much more time than they have. My opponent thinks that all people aroundthe world rely on only electricity for necessities. He or she did not take into consideration about third world countries. The majority of those countries are in an economic crisis that has to exclude electricity. Therefore, those countries would not be effected by the loss of electricity. "The zombies are wandering aimlessly until they find people with food, and then attack those people to feed themselves. " Con states that the best way to get by during this "zombie" apocalypse is to hide your food in a secret stash, and walk around acting like you are starving. It does not take a genius or intellectual being to think of this. How would this bring an end to mankind? "In my scenario zombies are capable of working together, but also have the ability turn on each other, which is more plausible then zombies only attacking the living. " My opponent's finishing statement is an unworthy statement because it is inaccurate. I can infer that by "zombies only attacking the living," he is referring to my argument. For one thing, my opponent goes on and off about weather he classifies zombies as people with brains or not. Sometimes he says they do, sometimes he contradicts his own statements. So we can say that occasionally they work together, but if they don't have brains then they can't work together. If they have the ability to turn on eachother, they do have brains because it requires many muscles to perform a simple idea such as that. For my arguments, my opponent has not contradicted any of it yet, and I have fully informed the audience in rounds two and three. I await my opponent's response.