A Robot Uprising would be more disasterous to humanity than a Zombie Apocalypse

I agree with his opening paragraph. While I stand by my arguments strongly, I apologize if I appeared rude or over-aggressive in my previous speech. C1: Robot uprising First I will point out that I made 11 arguments as to why a robot uprising is clearly bad. Four of them went unanswered, so these are a priori reasons to flow this pro.A. He dropped my first argument. Con still hasn't explained why an Uprising is the same thing as a revolution. His entire argument here is based around twisting the word revolution into a good thing. But as I stated, the topic references an Uprising, not a revolution. B. Argument two went unanswered. My opponent knows what the topic is referencing, but ignored the clear interpretation regardless. By him avoiding the topic at hand, conduct must go pro. C. Argument 8 was dropped; my interpretation of the resolution (Robot Uprising bad) is the most preferable.D. Argument 10 was dropped. Go back to rule 1 in my opening round; it specifically references robots rebelling to destroy humanity. Clearly a bad thing for the human race. Again, these are drops/concessions. Independent reasons to go pro on this issue. Onto the arguments that were made. First he calls me abusive for expecting him to have seen I Robot, as apparently he has only read some of the book, not the movie.1. No, its not abusive to expect my opponent to know the facts about arguments he uses. 2. Robots rebel against humanity with force in the books as well, not just the movie. Clearly, no matter how he tries to look at this, the three laws do not protect us from an uprising.Next, he says robots may rebel against other species, but not humans.Extend my dropped argument 1 from above. The very first rule I give in round 1 literally says that robots are trying to destroy the human race. Flow this pro immediately as this argument was dropped.Con: Humanity is not harming the environment, so robots wont rebel to stop thisRather than list countless sources about how industrial pollution is contaminating the environment, I'll just point out that this argument had no warrant or logical reasoning behind it whatsoever.Onto my proposed definitions. Note that con has not disputed them, so count them as true. Con: Regardless of my definitions, robots will only harm other species, not humanity.Extend argument 7 on his C1. My accepted definition of Robot Uprising clearly stated that it is "a scenario in which AI's decide that humans are a threat...and try to destroy or enslave them."Accepted definition clearly outlines harm to humanity, not insects or animals. Then he says I am only building up robots, not saying that they're more destructive than zombies.This is honestly the most blatantly false statement made yet. Look at my opening case. I give arguments in every paragraph about things zombies can't do. C1: Robots use weapons, zombies too dumb to. C1: Zombie horde easily killed by airborne vehicle. C2: Robots avoid damage, while zombies foolishly walk into onslaught of firepower. C3: Robots multiply faster than zombies. C4: Zombies can't cross oceans while robots can. Listing unique advantages robots have over zombies shows they're more destructive. It is ridiculous to claim I only build up robots when I made points against zombies all over the pro case.Extend this to his Physical vs Chemical warfare example; I gave arguments for one and against the other, fulfilling my burden.Impact CalcProbability:1. He claims this is not a debate about fictional occurrences. Note that by saying this, he's essentially trying to make a debate about Zombies and robots, realistic. First, I made the resolution. I know what its about; its about things that will likely not happen but are fun to hypothesize about. I think all viewers reading this know this as well. But furthermore, remember how he's accepted my model of I Robot as a robot uprising. Clearly that is a fictional movie. 2. His "Haitian powder" still doesn't qualify as a zombie; I'll get to this later.Timeframe1. Haitian powder = not zombies, I'll get to this later.2. This is a zombie (1). Does this exist now? No it does not. Neither does intelligent humanoid robots. Clearly fictional, and impossible to predict TF. Magnitude1. Group this with eleven C1 arguments.2. I'm showing why robots are stronger than zombies here, pointing out how my arguments for why robots are stronger are based on reasoning rather than definitions.C2: Zombie ApocalypseCon: We all know what apocalypse means.Yes, we know that Apocalypse by itself indicates world destruction. However, the resolution references a "Zombie" Apocalypse, which is not the same thing. When attached after the word Zombie, the term simply describes a group of them attempting to destroy humanity; it does not imply the world automatically being destroyed. Furthermore, since he never denied my given definition of it as viable, you can see clearly that the world isn't destroyed, the accepted definition doesn't mention it.1 and 2: We agree these points come down to other arguments.On three, he says that "I Don't claim that the world would instantly come to an end"I quoted him directly in my previous speech showing him otherwise. Here is his exact words: "apocalypse, by sheer definition...points to global destruction". I cannot allow him to pretend like he didn't say things he clearly did.Then he accepts my given definition, but says that it warrants a zombie apocalypse over a robot uprising. Small problem, he gives no analysis at all as to why thats true. Nowhere it the definition does it ever mention robots, so he can't just go and say that it warrants something that was never mentioned. A. Haitian Zombie Powder1. I concede this point, I apparently misinterpreted this argument a bit.The argument is still invalidated because of the next one.2. He says that this "Haitian powder" fits into his definition of ZombieHere my opponent refutes an argument that was never made. I never argued that it didnt fit his definition, the point was that his entire argument violates my rule three by not being a general stereotype of zombies. As previously stated, when we think of a zombie apocalypse, clearly the world being infected by some herbs from Haiti is not the first thing that comes to mind. Since he attacked the wrong argument, consider this rule violation dropped and toss this argument about neurotoxins in Haiti out of the round. Also, a rule violation means conduct goes pro. Next, He says I dont offer a link to anything about I Robot (my model for a robot uprising) in my initial case.Ridiculous claim; I referenced it three times. C1-A, C2-A, and C3-A all had references to I Robot. This is the second blatantly false claim that has been made about my constructive; I must wonder whether my initial case was actually read.Then he says I Robot is just a movie.Its been established that this a fictional debate. Contrary to what my opponent seems to believe, this is supposed to be about pop culture and movies. To finish up with the on-case, I point out that by my accepted interpretation of the resolution, clearly robots are trying to destroy humanity. Also, he made no impact calculus in contention 2, I cant drop an argument that was never made.Voting issues1. His main argument all round has been Robot Uprising good, or not bad. But when he drops four of the arguments I make as to why it is bad, there's no way this doesn't flow pro. 2. Herbal powders in Haiti is not a general stereotype of zombies, which I stated he must follow in my rule three.3. At the top of his C1 argument, he claims that he wasn't using semantics. Thats all he says; he never substantiates this claim one bit, and never shows us why this isn't semantics (probably because his whole argument clearly is). Therefore, at the point where Freeman has banned semantics for this tournament, this is an automatic win. 4. Con dropped all of my unique advantages robots have over zombies described in my opening case. Thanks to Hello-Orange for the debate.