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

To limit the amount of comment rebuts I'll have to make, I'll respond to Ragnar_Rahl's points in the order he gives them (including those in the comments), with a line in between. But first, I'd like to make a few observations on the argument as is thus far. First, I'd like to point out most of the reasons given to support a robot uprising are only those to show that one could occur, not that it would be more effective. We are not debating about how either would start, but in the event that it did, which one would cause man's extinction more effectively. Second, Rahl likes to use analogies, and I ask you not get lost in those. Most don't apply to the situations at hand, as they are completely different from anything man has yet experienced. Lastly, he tries to disprove many of my terms through philosophical logic. I'll still argue against them, but they in no way add to his or detract from mine. Arguing whether a zombie is a zombie does not attack if a zombie apocalypse would be effective or not, only the idea of a zombie. Therefore, ones such as these are irrelevant. Now to my rebuttals. Premises have resolutions, to gain that resolution is the intention and desire, so yes they do, though this is irrelevant to the argument. Which it will not, as I specified in the beginning. Nobody will take it seriously until it is too late. Because no one believes zombies are real, they will assume that these people are still people infected with something like rabies, and will try to contain and treat it, but because the zombies have purely carnivorous instincts, they will just keep biting. Just getting bitten spreads the disease FASTER. Remember how the premise states it effects all dead human bodies? This means that every human is already infected, and once they die they will reanimate, unless their brain is destroyed. No person is clean, but a ticking time bomb. Besides, people will find ways to look clean because if they are bitten effects will not be instantaneous. Even they will think they are okay, and will try to disguise any pain they feel. This method is already used to get past real quarantined zones. They will manage to get past any resistance or guard and is only a matter of time before they die and infect any 'protected' city from within. So as you just admitted, there are years in between. The robots have been biding their time for the public to get in a state of general calm. Already you've admitted that the robot takeover process is slow, thus ineffective in comparison to my premise. Your analogy is flawed. 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. Perhaps not pre-engineered but still there, something any scientist would know about the robots. Thus we can say that because they existed within the robot at its creation that it was pre-made weak points, intentional or not. Machines and terminal disease are not the same. More accurate for robots would be a sentient example. We are aware of enemy soldiers, and we know how to fight them. Your example more closely relates to my premise, so I thank you for the help. Does it matter where is spreads though? Really? We can say it was China (an actual hypothesis by the way) and it still wouldn't matter. It is obviously air borne and travels by winds, so even if there is an origin point it would spread too quickly for the location of that point to really be of all that much concern. There's your explanation. However, this point really proves nothing towards either resolution. We aren't discussing its genesis, just it's effects. The fact that it is worldwide suffices. Most zombies early on will not be the decomposing horror people first imagine, but look just like regular people acting odd. 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. So Zombies do have the capabilities to walk among us. It will only be later on that they really gain the ghoulish look. It is estimated that every second 1 person dies somewhere (even though this is hardly accurate). So for every 1 who dies they will likely bite someone and turn them. Both will then bite another, plus the natural death, and so on. By the end of 1 minute, there are now likely at least 1000 people dead world wide. This would probably triple within the next (give or take) and so on. The Civil war is irrelevant because soldiers didn't just multiply to their side, it took years, just like your robots. Mine spreads infection style. Again, you concede it takes time for the rebellion to even start. We aren't discussing that, only the effects. But you've now twice admitted that it will take a long period of time, and that most of the start of the rebellion is just playing possum. So under your example, the robots have had to spend much of their time just organizing. This goes no further to destroying mankind, only shaping it, and thus, far more ineffective than mine which just gets to it, and quite efficiently might I add. This is specifically in the premise. When you accepted this debate you accepted that the robots had a main brain controlling their actions. So this whole point of yours is dropped. This China shipping analogy is also irrelevant. Every company has certain standards, and as I pointed out in my recent tournament debate, most Chinese manufacturers are as shocked by the poisoning as we are. But this argument does not add to either premise, so it is dropped. People will think their houses are safe, as they do in current natural disasters, and try to set up a base there. Zombies break in, and kill the family inside. The police will also be too busy with the 10,000 other 911 calls that everyone else is putting through. And more than 1 zombie will attack a house, and not just from the front, but all around. So if someone did run out the back, there is a zombie horde waiting to welcome them. This is why most will be killed in the one place they thought was safe. (comments) But you would easily notice a robot or two driving it, making it much more detectable. This still doesn't add to how it makes mans extinction more effective. But a war still is a war, especially with the technology we have now. Like in Iraq, humans would use guerilla warfare against the mighty machines, and as any General knows, this lengthens wars considerably. So the inevitable war still makes robots less effective than zombies. Like I said, we all have it, bites make it faster. Now, imagine a terrifying worldwide crisis. Then add mass suicides on all continents. Not so negligible now is it? Nowhere in the premise does it say that robots can have their own factories, yet I let you have it. But anyway, zombies are dead, the virus, as I specified, only effects basic motor function, not nerves. When someone is dead, they don't feel, the same with zombies, the only difference is they can move and bite. And they sense, not have sensations. There's a difference. The spinal chord is thin. Perhaps as thick as a dime. Compare a dime to your torso. So I won't deny that this is a possibility, but it doesn't have much merit. An AK is made to just hit the body, not make precision shots. So while it could get lucky, is still ineffective towards truly stopping many zombies. A well-trained hand a pistol would be better. But these specialists are not amassed in a huge resistance when it begins, they are spread out, and any 1 person can't withstand 100 forever. So most of your specialists are already dead, and if they live, would be trapped by themselves someplace secure with limited supplies. So if they don't die by lack of bullets, they'll die of starvation of craziness from the solitude. The early stages are when humans are most vulnerable because of the surprise factor. See my first paragraph for details on this. Continued...