A chainsaw is the worst weapon in a zombie apocalypse

Let's get the definitions out of the way. DEFINITIONS ========= . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Weapon - A means used to defend against or defeat another . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Worst - Most inferior, as in quality, condition, or effect. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Zombie - A supernatural spirit that reanimates a dead body . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Apocalypse - An event of great importance, violence, etc BURDEN OF PROOF ============ As Con, my burden of proof is to provide at least one (1) weapon that is worse overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc. ) in case of a zombie apocalypse. As Pro, my opponent's burden of proof is to prove that a chainsaw is the worst weapon overall (in terms of strength, speed, accuracy, usage, etc. ) in case of a zombie apocalypse. CONTENTIONS ======== My opponent has named some qualities of a chainsaw that would prove to be ineffective at holding back a zombie horde. However, I will contend his points 1, 2 & 4. I will deal with 1 & 2 as a single point, as they are effectively the same thing. 1& 2) 'It is too heavy/difficult for an average person to lift & use. ' My opponent's argument is that in all actuality, a chainsaw would prove too heavy for a normal person to safely/easily lift in order to defend oneself. However, he has not provided the average weight of a chainsaw to prove this claim, nor has he provided any information regarding how much an average person can lift comfortably. Also, my opponent forgets that in times of great distress, a human receives an 'energy boost', as it were, from his/her body in the form of adrenaline, which is a hormone secreted by the adrenal gland. This adrenaline rushes to the heart, and speeds the rate of breathing. This allows for more oxygen intake, and the heart starts to work faster. This provides for more energy available at one's disposal. I would certainly think that this is valid because for most, if not all, people a zombie apocalypse is definitely a reason for great distress, thus enabling the 'energy boost,' and therefore letting the person lift up said chainsaw much more easier than my opponent would like the audience to think. (1) 4) 'Only one or two kills can be performed. ' My opponent's argument here is that the chainsaw's blade may become stuck in the innards of a zombie, and this would force you to abandon it. His reason for this is that the chainsaw's blades are jagged, and therefore easier to get caught in some zombie's body. My opponent fails to note that the chainsaw is moving at a very rapid speed, and thus is highly unlikely to get caught in a body. Not only that, but the rest of his claim is based on conjecture, and is not supported on any true facts. As for now, I do believe I have made most of my opponent's claims invalid. WEAPONS OF CHOICE ============== As for this round, I shall choose three different weapons. The first, a pair of scissors. The second, 5 micro moles of water contained in a very small, fragile, plastic pipette capable of holding 6 micro moles of liquid. The third, a golf ball. My opponent has not set up any requirements or restrictions for the weapons of choice, so my picks are acceptable. ARGUMENTS ======== My first set of arguments will deal with my first choice, a pair of scissors. 1a) Too weak. A pair of scissors would not have much destructive capabilities. To 'kill' any zombies, my pair of scissors must do something seriously fatal, like breaking through the strong skull of a human to destroy the brain, which is the traditional method of death. I assume that in a zombie, blood is not flowing, and the only thing compelling the corpse to move is to destroy its brain. However, a pair of scissors would not be able to generate the force necessary to kill zombies. Even if it did, I could argue that my opponent's choice, a chainsaw, would be able to do much more. 1b) No reach. With a pair of scissors, I would not be able to kill any zombies possible without getting my limbs devoured. Since a pair of scissors requires one to get in arm's reach of a zombie, where they could easily pull me in and eat me, it is not a very good weapon. 1c) Not able to kill anything else in any form. Scissors would not be able to do anything than allow the user to attempt to destroy the brain, and for reasons already given, this would not work, as I'd either be devoured before I got the chance, or I wouldn't be able to penetrate and destroy the brain. Scissors can not help me do a thing. My second set of arguments will deal with my incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water. 2) I can't possibly do anything with it! That's just it, point-blank. I can't use it. At all. It has no sharpness, no dangerous components, nothing. I could try and make a zombie choke on it, but two things are wrong with that. 1) It is so small it can't choke anything. 2) I would have no weapon left. I think I have adequately shown why an incredibly fragile, small, plastic pipette containing of 5 micro moles of liquid water is much worse than a chainsaw at slaughtering zombies. And now, onto my final item, a golf ball. 3) Destructive abilities are pitifully low. The best thing I could do with it would be to chuck it REALLY hard at a zombie and hope it somehow builds up enough force to penetrate the brain of the blasted thing, and still retain enough force to burst out of the other end of it. Obviously, a throw from an average person, even at their hardest, couldn't build up enough strength for that, including the adrenalin boost.