A Zombie Apocalypse would be More Effective in causing Living Mans extinction than a Robot Uprising

You seem to be making a straw man of my philosophical argument. I was not arguing whether a zombie is a zombie, I was arguing about the consequences of the precursor to a zombie being a zombie- the cancellation of a law of nature that allows for human life. i.e. if a zombie virus occurs, humans are already dead and therefore cannot become extinct as a result of the virus. The law of non-contradiction. Treat the argument as it stands, don't twist it at will. "Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies?" No, it states it effects ONLY dead human bodies. It cannot automatically affect "all" dead bodies, physics dictates it has to travel first. All viruses have an origin point. "Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous." They will occur in a few hours. A few hours during which they will be scared as hell, and thus probably incapable of doing much or travelling many places (the competent ones are less likely to be bitten, and those bitten are likely to have the zombie on top of them for awhile until they are no longer living, since they instinctually chase living matter (by implication and by the nature of sensation the closest available). "Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. " Please read more carefully. As I've already stated, NOTHING in the definition of effectiveness implies speed. It only implies that it will happen. That which is more effective is that which is more likely to make human closest to extinction (i.e. effectiveness in terms of a future possible event can be expressed by an equation of likelihood of x deaths times x deaths plus likelihood of y deaths times y deaths, added until all possible numbers of deaths are available.) Since the zombies are more likely to be caught early on (they are incapable of stealth), and neither is easily stopped at any other time, the zombies have the lower Σ value. "There is nothing we can effectively do about global warming because the public controls it, but with robots it is companies, which the government does have power over." Then why hasn't the government magically made all the things about the companies that it doesn't like go away? Simple. It doesn't know how. Considering how many robots are likely to be made for military use, they would intentionally make sure they had no built-in weakpoints. And the premises still contradict your notion. Enemy soldiers would not be an accurate analogy in regard to the robots and our knowledge of how to fight them, because people (some people, not all, not even most really), only know how to fight soldiers because they've been doing it for thousands of years. Robots, however, are about as new as cancer. Air borne viruses do not "Travel by winds," they only travel in fogs around the host. They die out or spread too thin to infect if they are carried by the wind too long. And most viruses originate in the middle of a jungle or some such, where not much wind gets through. "We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects." Every discussion about effects must, by the law of causality, have reference to an origin point to be accurate. "The fact that it is worldwide suffices." No, it "is" not worldwide, it potentially "spreads" worldwide. Implying that that is only if it is not stopped. " Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. " Have you seen what a bite mark looks like when something instinctually gives it, especially considering the bite won't be the only thing to have happened to the victim? They'll look a lot worse than hoboes, and people run from those if the hobo starts chasing with teeth bared, especially if they don't respond to language. "If you've seen the corpse of someone recently deceased at a funeral, you can tell that they were once a person, they are just more pale." Um hello, that's because the corpse is INTENTIONALLY CLEANED, and usually there are some chemicals like formaldehyde used. You try to embalm a zombie and see if he sits still for it. I'll ignore your "every second" bit, since it's clearly not based on any real possibilities (zombies would have to be everywhere at once, or viruses would have to behave in an un-virus-like manner). The premise states they are initially "programmed by a main computer." It statedwe "Can" assume it started the rebellion, but don't have to. It does not state they continue to be controlled by the main computer later, or that harming the main computer will harm the rebellion, or that the main computer programming them is necessary in order for them to receive the programming (it could be done just out of custom). If you meant to put something else there, that's great, but you didn't. So quit pretending the premises are something other than they are. The fact that people are shocked by poor manufacturing practices or that all companies pretend to have standards does not mean that those standards will be realized in practice. As the chinese shipping matter proves. How will a zombie break in to any but a poorly built home? They act by instinct, not by skill. They can't pick locks, can't realize that tools will help them, they'll just continually bash their heads and arms against it. Which gives the families in the home plenty of time to tie a knife to a broomstick and use it as a spear, which they'll keep stabbing the zombie with from a window (holding him off obviously) until they hit the head. "And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. " Only later, not covering the origin strategy, which is the crucial determinant of likely effectiveness. You would not notice a robot driver if it became customary- especially if the robot is humanoid in appearance, not impossible (heck we've got humanoid robots now if I remember right, although expensive :D) Especially if there are tinted windows. " Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. ' Not in the premises. " Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it" Because it says they are intelligent. Thereby implying factories. "And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference." Every sense implies a sensation. A sensation is the product of a stimulus and a sense. "and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever" In a strategic location, dealing with automatons, yes they can :D. And if they are in a group, they can do much more, because they can take shifts, say in a valley with one pass that needs defending. In conclusion, time has nothing to do with effectiveness here, only the extent of slaughter and the likelihood of that extent. Unless you want extinction to be a goal as an absolute only, which would mean the likelihood of extinction. Robots take their time, but it's not a race, it's a long-term competition, and it is harder to catch them in time to stop them.