Slow moving Zombies are more realistic than fast moving zombies

I think my opponent has raised a lot of excellent points, and I will continue to do my best to refute them. As this is the final round, I will not make any new arguments, though I will clarify a few older ones. I posted my opponent's definitions from Round 1, and my opponent has failed to prove that I have violated them. Now he did provide examples of fast and slow zombies:"Examples of slow moving zombies are "Max Brooks" Zombies. The zombies in Shaun of the Dead. Examples of fast moving zombies include Zombies from 28 days later and The World War Z movie. "However, my opponent never asserted that these examples were exclusive and that they were the only ones I was allowed to argue. I have discussed zombies in general and used my opponent's examples as evidence, but I never limited my case to them, nor was I ever told to. Since this was never established as a limitation, my argument remains valid. "4 weeks is a wholly unrealistic period of decomposition. "A corpse can become a moving mass of maggots within 24 hours. "(1) In 4 weeks a corpse would be totally destroyed, but even 1 or 2 week old zombies are seen sprinting in 28 Days Later. " I discussed in the previous round how, in zombies, the process of decomposition is halted/slowed. This makes it entirely possible for these zombies to still be around several weeks later. The decomposition period of a zombie cannot be compared with that of a typical corpse. "Furthermore zombies are seen with speed faster than humans in World War Z and committing feats that would require bones Stronger than that of humans. See the following clip. "The strength of zombies is irrelevant to this debate, and I do not have to defend the premise that zombies are faster than humans. Honestly, I had a lot of problems with World War Z (how the heck did that many zombies get over Israel's wall with no one noticing? ). But neither of those points fall under my burden to defend. I am discussing fast zombies, yes, but we never clarified how fast that has to include. So I am arguing for zombies moving faster than those seen in Brooks' or Romero's worlds. "Furthermore, all traits of zombies who are freshly infected like my opponent suggests (Extreme aggression, inability to feel pain, hunger control) are indicitive of brain damage in the same areas of the brain that control coordination, and therefore zombies still could not run, or sprint. "This is not strictly accurate. It is true that both coordination and emotions are controlled by the cerebrum. However, movement is controlled by the motor cortex [1] while anger is part of the limbic system and aggression is controlled by the Amygdala [2]. Thus it remains entirely possible for zombies to be consumed by aggression and still run. Such occurs in 28 Days Later with the Rage Virus, which continually forces the brain to pump adrenaline. This accounts for the speed witnessed by these zombies and also for their decay a while later. It is worth noting that the Rage Virus is a genetically engineered virus, thus adding a whole different level of possibility to the realism of fast zombies as controlled to slow ones, as a genetically engineered virus has different capabilities than a standard one. "But there still must be a source of energy. The only energy humans are capable of converting is chemical via digestion. Therefore, zombies must eat for energy. Fast moving zombies must eat a whole lot, thus slowing the infection and lowering their ranks and decreasing their longevity, making them worse at creating a zombie apocalypse and therefore less realistic. "We have seen that zombies do eat. It is also not necessary for a zombie to consume an entire human in order to gather flesh in its system. Thus a fast zombie can both increase the ranks of the zombie horde and get food at the same time. I have conceded that their longevity is lowered, but neither their longevity nor their effectiveness have any bearing on whether one is more realistic than the other. We are not debating the damages they could do nor which type of apocalypse would be worse. Your standard is thus irrelevant to the resolution. "This lowers the number of available hosts. Also, How do zombies decide who to eat and who to infect? Their brains clearly are not functioning at an intelligent level. "I have already addressed the first sentence - a zombie does not have to consume an entire human. Additionally, the interest of the virus is not just to repopulate. In 28 Days Later, consuming the non-infected is equally important to the virus as spreading [3]. And I doubt zombies make a decision about whether to eat or consume someone. Generally it's just about how much time elapses before the body reanimates into a zombie. We know that colder areas slow the rate of decomposition for zombies. At temperatures higher than needed to freeze them but still relatively cold, faster zombies would have an even slower rate of decomposition than the virus grants them. "Your fatal flaw here is that Max Brooks writes about Slow Moving Zombies. Your point therefore strengthens only my argument. The books The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z (Remember the books, not the movies) both are written by Max Brooks and refer to zombies as shambling slow moving undead. "There is no reason that what applies to Brooks' slow-moving zombies cannot apply to the faster ones, especially when both in this resolution would originate from the same/a similar virus. Again, this debate is not about Romero versus 28 Days Later but about zombies in general. "Even if Zombies did successfully infect a large number of people in one area it could never spread across the world if the only lasted for 5 or 6 days. If zombies decomposed past mobility in less than a week then the outbreak could be easily managed and contained. "I have established many times that the rate of decomposition is not as fast as you imply in zombies. But even if it was, every time one zombie infects one person, that's another five or six days bought. And one zombie would infect many people in those days. So when one zombie decomposes entirely after that time period (which would not happen, but for the sake of argument), there would still be many fresher zombies infecting fresh humans. "The underlined portion is a random stab with little relevance. "Admittedly. It was a joke. "As far as the bolded portion, I ask, can you cite a source that suggest that there is a virus or bacterial infection that is capable of killing you and that gives you more energy. You might have a hard time finding one because there is none. No infection improves the human body, bacterial or viral, especially to the degree that the zombie virus does. The zombies in the WWZ movie are seen smashing in car windows with their heads, A normal human would have the bones smashed in the process. Totally unrealistic. "Both a genetically modified virus and a virus not yet documented by science can possibly do this. There are plenty of illnesses today that grant people bursts of energy. These wear out as other functions take over. But in a zombie, these other functions would not occur. Zombies do not get exhausted. There would only be the energy of the virus with nothing to dilute it but action. Fast action. The zombie being fast, in other words. And again, the strength of the zombies is irrelevant to the debate. It wouldn't be exactly photosynthesis but something similar to it. Measuring a zombie apocalypse by the viruses we have today is an absurd standard. (One might argue that I'm arguing a hypothetical here, but the entire scenario is hypothetical, so it fits). A genetically modified virus like the Rage Virus also fits the bill. "Horde hunting and outlast are how slow zombies catch their prey and Max Brooks (zombie expert) seems inclined to believe that it is a very efficient method of cathcing prey. " Max Brooks is not the sole 'expert' on zombies. I could easily have argued with Jonathan Maberry or any other popular writer. Horde hunting is efficient, but both fast and slow zombies can use it. "You can try to argue that magic is realistic. Go for it. "Imperio! Now admit I won the debate! Did that convince you? No? Darn. In all seriousness though, you provided magic as a possibility in Round 1, and are you really going to criticise the realism of magic in a debate about reanimated corpses that actively hunt the living? Make your own points; don't link me to a video that defends them for you. Since the rate of decay is slowed/stopped in zombies, fast zombies are able to stick around for longer than a typical corpse would. Fast zombies can gather energy by consuming humans/animals, and the infection, particularly if it is bacterial, has to means to metabolise it. Even without that, fast zombies remain more realistic as long as they can self-atrophy, and if they were equally or more realistic at any point in a zombie apocalypse, then I have disproven the resolution. Zombies are reanimated corpses in the same condition as the human was when alive, and if the human was able to run, logically, then so can the zombie, thus adding to the realism of fast zombies. It would be more unrealistic if that same corpse could suddenly only shamble. I would like to again thank my opponent for this wonderful debate! Vote CON! MAGIC! MAGIC! MAGIC! [1] . http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu...[2] . http://webspace.ship.edu...[3] . http://zombie.wikia.com...