Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

My opponent asserts that I am violating his definitions. I disagree. My opponent said: "Zombies are defined for the sake of this debate as ghoulish bodies of humans who have been reanimated after death by a virus, magic, etc. that typically attempt to bite humans in order to spread their plague or eat the brains of the human. "My oppoent also defines realistic:"Realistic is defined as: having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. or representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life. " Nowhere does this imply the zombie has to be in a constant state. Thus I have not violated any definitions. In fact, my opponent's second definition of realistic actually testifies to my claim that zombies begin fast and gradually slow - like a human tires after expending energy. In fact, using the film 28 Days Later is actually beneficial to my case, as the infected in that movie are speedy but die out nearly entirely after 4 weeks. This supports the logical and gradual degredation of the zombie body that begins fast, thus establishing the realistic sense of faster zombies, and gradually wears out. Thus these zombies match the criteria for fast-moving zombies. "In both examples of fast moving zombies, they do not consume flesh, they merely pass on the infection, then move along. This is especially true in the World War Z movie zombies. These zombies specifically avoid the infected. " The zombies in World War Z avoided the infected humans not because of a repulsion to their flesh but because the virus knew they would make poor hosts. We know from practically every zombie horror movie/book/etc that zombies consume flesh and/or organs. My point in using the viral study was to demonstrate that viruses can turn one form on energy into another, which was previously thought impossible. Viruses constantly mutate, and a virus capable of reanimating the dead would be brand new. It is entirely possible that said virus could transform (I admit, generate was a bad word. I meant converted by it, in the same sense that a generator converts hydropower to electricity. ) the energy from consuming flesh into chemical energy. The same applies for, bacteria, which my opponent concedes are capable of metabolising energy. "Again I state, energy is NOT generated. Energy is converted. Yes bacterial organisms are capable of metabolizing energy to provide energy to themselves, but this still requires some source of energy (food). " The flesh/brains is their food. Additionally, I will respond to another of my opponent's points here - the brain versus reproduction point. My opponent said:, "One might argue that zombies eat brains for chemical energy, but if this were true the zombie virus (or other infection) would never spread due to the lack of available hosts. " I substituted flesh for brains, but either way, let's examine this point. If zombies eat brains and can gain energy from them (as I argue they theoretically can, particularly if the infection is bacterial and thus provides more evidence for faster zombies), how do they - for lack of a better word - repopulate? Simply, it becomes a numbers game. For simplicity's sake, let's say we have 10 zombies and 100 humans. Some of these humans are prepared to fight. others are holed up somewhere, others are caught and eaten entirely, and others escape with a bite or scratch (and we all know what this means). Just because the zombies eat brains/flesh does not mean they consume one or the other (or both) successfully in 100% of encounters between zombies and humans. Partially eaten victims are common, not to mention that, in films like 28 Days Later, a single drop of blood in the eye is sufficient to turn an adult male human into a zombie. Thus it is still entirely possible for zombies to transform the energy from flesh/brains and still repopulate. "In the case of the World War Z Zombie this is true, initially. But Many scenes in the movie depict zombies that are clearly rotting in an accelerated state. This is likely due to the fact that since they do not consume chemical energy, the zombies must atrophy their own bodies in order to move and function. This combined with the forces that accompany rapid movement would very quickly cause the body to fall apart. Zombies are the undead, walking corpses. Without refridgeration, bodies decompose very quickly (1)" I could just as easily argue that faster zombies are then more realistic in colder parts of the world. Like time, I can argue place to disprove the resolution. However, let's delve a little deeper. Many scenes in the movie show zombies in bad shape. I argue that at least some of this is due to the state the body was in while being attacked by zombies, while being consumed by zombies, and/or before reanimation. A body won't exactly look healthy with teeth and claw marks all over it. At first glance, my opponent's remarks regarding decomposition appear valid. After all, zombies are certainly exposed to the elements. However, in almost every zombie case, it is documented that the decomposition process stops/slows somehow. In Max Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide, this is attributed to the virus Solanum [1]. Additionally, weather conditions are not the same everywhere. While some zombies may decompose faster, others will not. Zombies will also make new zombies by infecting other humans. Even if nothing slows the decomposition, the zombie remains quick for a portion of its short un-life. The resolution concerns slow zombies being more realistic than fast ones. If fast ones are more realistic earlier in a zombie apocalypse and slow ones are more realistic later, then both were equally realistic, and this suffices to disprove the resolution. I can either prove fast zombies to be more realistic (as I have shown they are in the earlier stages of a zombie apocalypse) or prove that both are equally realistic. "If fast moving zombies only last for a few days, then there is no way the outbreak could effectively spread. "I have to disagree with this. Get one zombie into a crowded place, say an airport or a shopping mall, and the infection will spread like wildfire. In World War Z, seconds pass between bite and infection in most cases. A single, fast-moving zombie could be enough to infect dozens of people [2]. Additionally, this is a concession on my opponent's part regarding the realism of fast-moving zombies. "This is simply a purposeful misinterpretation of my use and the concept of "energy efficiency. " Obviously zombies lack the brain function to operate advanced weaponry, but even if they could use weapons, guns wouldn't spread the virus. My point is that Zombies that are sedentary until activated by stimulus are more realistic as they could preserve their bodies for longer periods of time, and would consume less energy while hunting for prey. Furthermore, Slow moving zombies would operate for longer, as less force would be put on their rotting ligaments. " I believe my opponent misunderstood my point. In humans it is a conscious decision to preserve energy efficiently by being sedentary. Zombies do not make this decision. They are sedentary because they have nothing to react to. Both fast and slow zombies are sedentary until alerted by something. Additionally (I use that word a lot, don't I? ), there are viral and bacterial infections that induce their hosts with large amounts of energy. (After all, the origin of doing something feverishly began somewhere). Alternatively, perhaps the virus/bacteria/magic/etc is capable of photosynthesis. Who knows? If it's a virus, it is unknown and unlike anything we presently know, and many zombies do take on a greenish tinge. The pathogen could also be capable of burning less important cells and other parts of the body to use chemical energy, much like how the human body burns fat first. "Not all cases of zombification exhibit reanimation of the body in good condition, (see Shaun of the Dead, and "The Max Brooks Zombie") and therefore it cannot be assumed that the body will indeed be capable of sprinting. " I admitted that not all bodies would be in good condition for reanimation; thus, not all zombies would be able to run. But most bodies would be in a condition good enough to move faster than a shuffle, and that makes faster zombies more realistic than slow ones. What would be unrealistic is if the muscles automatically deteriorated enough to force the zombies to hobble along directly after reanimation, thus making slower zombies unrealistic, especially during early stages of an outbreak. I have shown that I have not violated any definition as written. I have simply steered the conversation to include a time period where my premise holds more water and yet is entirely within the parameters of the debate. I have established clear times wherein fast zombies function according to the laws of thermodynamics (which we'll assume the undead operate by), and that is the bare minimum I have to do to disprove the resolution. I have also successfully refuted my opponent's other assertions (sedentary again not having much relevance as both types of zombies are sedentary when undisturbed. ) I have pointed out how the virus/bacteria/etc delays the process of decomposition and allows zombies to remain for longer periods of time. I have provided several avenues as to how zombies can continuously obtain energy, including the virus itself and its undetermined capabilities. My opponent claimed that slower zombies were more efficient hunters. Actually a faster zombie is a more efficient hunter because it has a higher chance of catching something. (I also note that, as magic was one of the options, I could sit here and spam magic over and over again. ) I look forward to the final round! Vote CON! [1] Brooks, Max. The Zombie Survival Guide. Three Rivers Press, 2003. Print. [2] . http://www.livescience.com...