A Chainsaw is the worst weapon to use in a zombie apocalypse.

I will just quickly detail the advantages that the Kershaw has over the Chainsaw that I presented (20 inch blade), and then attempt to refute my opponent's points. 1: I know I wasn't too specific when I gave various methods to kill a zombie with a knife. But, my opponent must consider that in choosing a one handed weapon, there is more mobility, and the ever-important free second hand. While you're bringing yourself closer to danger, it goes without saying that you would have more control in that situation, than with a chainsaw. 1. a: With mobility, you could easily get around a zombie. It's not like they can turn on a heel, But with a chainsaw, my mobility is decreased. It would be much more difficult to move with a 10.6+ pound item in comparison to one that a toddler could tote. 2: The tip, with enough force (Depending on how you hold a knife), the tip of the blade, when you slam it down on the top of a zombie skull, would definitely be able to cause enough pressure and force to get through the skull. If you got to the back of a zombie, you could use the aforementioned free hand to get a more stable angle. Yes, it's dangerous, but more reliable than a chainsaw. 3: The Kershaw's weight allows for easier strikes to the head. As I mentioned before, with the chainsaw, you must heft it and drive it through the zombie, with the neck being the most preferable area. This would be fatiguing, and simply not easy. 4: The Kershaw isn't making constant noise. You could still get the element of surprise, scenario permitting. But against a horde, this point is irrelevant. 5. It's easier to retrieve once you've driven it in a zombie. The Kershaw isn't serrated, or jagged. It's a smooth blade. With enough force, assuming the zombies are rotten enough, one could get multiple kills before going down, as improbable as this may seem, it's a better chance. Now, I will finally just refute or attempt to refute some of the things my opponent has said. I must remind all voters that the goal was to provide a weapon /for use against a single zombie and a horde/. My opponent attempts to make the chainsaw double as an escape tool/diversion. This wasn't the goal of the debate, and it is a rather cheap tactic to make it seem a lot more useful as a weapon, and swing the argument over to their side. The goal isn't to discuss survival tactics. So I must ask that all voters take this in to consideration. "Speed, [1, first video]. This video shows a small chainsaw, go through an 8 inch diameter tree trunk in 1 second. Going through a 2 inch rotting vertebra is not going to take so long you need to park in the long term carport. " Do keep in mind, that if one has to go through the body of a zombie, there are organs, muscles, and bones in the way of that. One would have get through this sinewy muscle to get to the vertabrae, which isn't the issue I was bringing up to begin with. If you get a neck shot, that would probably be your only one, again, the chainsaw, as a weapon, is cumbersome and fatiguing. The video that my opponent provided is moot point. They show what the tool was made for, not what it was NOT made for. "Angle of attack. The defense style is obvious, you can simply keep the tip pointed that the gut of the zombie. Zombies are not fast enough to dart around and attack, so you just let them walk into it. " And the zombie, not feeling pain, would continue to walk in to it up to the spinal cord's severing. Against a single one, sure, might not seem like that big of a deal. But recovering the blade in a horde would be nigh impossible, and a forceful yank could throw one off balance. I still believe the Kershaw is more desirable in either circumstance. You can drive the blade in, and cleanly remove it. "Cutting limbs will not "kill" the zombie, but it will disable it. Allowing you to either walk away, or kill it at your leisure. " It may seem that way, but removing a zombie's legs will not stop it. And to say that it is beneficial to take all that time to saw through both arms and legs, is ridiculous. One would have to saw the arm off, and, assuming the zombie isn't feasting on them, they would have to crouch down slightly, throw their posture off, and saw through the leg at a good angle. Zombies will not stop while you're in the process of doing any of these. And if you just get rid of their legs, they are still a threat, they will crawl. "It is entirely possible that the virus dies in the air. Just like HIV dies in only minutes when exposed to the environment. " Assuming the virus is like HIV in this sense, while you are sawing through a zombie, and blood is spewing everywhere, it is not taking a few minutes to reach your body. If there were any open scrapes on you, it would only take a few seconds to get in and integrate itself. Now, even if the virus died upon open contact with air, that's now a viscous liquid that can get in your eyes, ears (Assuming you aren't wearing protection), mouth, and nose. It would simply put a damper on your senses. In conclusion, my opponent brings up some good points, and, while there isn't a doubt that the Kershaw Select Fire is indeed a bad weapon, my opponent has failed to really make it seem worse than the chainsaw. That was the goal all along, Yes, you have to be close to use it, but one could easily put power in to their strikes. As I mentioned before, the pressure that would be focused on the blade's tip, coupled with the fact that it has a short range, would provide enough pressure to get clean kills after clean kills with correct usage (To the top, back, or front, with the correct angle). With the freedom and mobility that one would have in comparison to a chainsaw, fatigue would come a lot slower. The wielder could have maneuverability on his or her side. And with that free hand, they could, albeit dangerously, anchor their target, or at least attempt to shift their weight as they see fit. The chainsaw is overly bulky, not practical in any weaponized sense, and has the most danger of malfunction (Again, without my opponent posting this supposed video of it being used against a person, it cannot be sufficiently used as proof). It would take too long to saw through an entire body, and one would have to risk their posture/stance to go for the legs. Neck shots would be rare, as carrying a 10 pound item around, constantly, is bound to fatigue one. They'd have to resort to going through every organ, muscle, and vein from one side to the other. And of course, the constant noise while weaponized/ready to use means that you're attracting zombies from EVERY angle. Taking out that lone walker is now going to cause a circle of zombies to converge on you. This sound would be traceable since it is constant, and not a tap at a time like you can do with, say, firearms. And, unlike the Kershaw, the Chainsaw is something that can run out, that can stop working on virtue of running on gasoline. This makes it a boisterous melee weapon that you have to fuel. Range is the only real advantage the Chainsaw claims, which is true, until it enters the body, then, as a weapon, it just comes toppling down with disadvantage after disadvantage that simply makes the Kershaw better.