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

I will try to keep myself civil, but I can't help but feel very disappointed by what my opponent has argued. I trusted my opponent to debate what the topic is clearly about without semantics or weird interpretations of the resolution, since he had told me he hated semantics. So I didn't feel the need to initially offer definitions or an excessive amounts of rules. It appears I was wrong.C1:My opponent's main argument is that a Robot Uprising is actually just a "revolution", which could be simple strides in robo-technology or something else thats not necessarily bad. 1. Absolutely no warrant as to why Uprising = Revolution. His argument is based on the word Revolution potentially implying something good. But the resolution references an Uprising, not a Revolution. So this isn't even topical.2. Even if uprising = revolution, my opponent knows what the resolution actually means, don't let him act like he doesn't. The voters also know what the resolution asks, and so do I. Vote pro because he has made the active choice to avoid the topic at hand.3. Even though he argued from semantics, he never gave an actual definition, so prefer the following ones I give.Here's why an Uprising is a bad thing (which should have been obvious from the start).4. Merriam-Webster's defines Uprising as "a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" (1).5. Dictionary.com - Very first definition`: "an insurrection or revolt. " (2)6. Google Define - Very first definition: "rebellion (or) organized opposition to authority." (3)7. If just defining Uprising isn't good enough, lets do Robot Uprising. Google Define - very first definition: " ...a scenario in which AIs (either a single supercomputer, a computer network, or sometimes a "race" of intelligent machines) decide that humans are a threat (either to the machines or to themselves) or are oppressors and try to destroy or to enslave them..." (4)All of these indicate a direct negative connotation. They all imply that robots will directly conflict with human interests with violence.8. Oh yeah, and my definitions were all the very first ones listed on those sites, so clearly my interpretation is the one most widely accepted.9. My opponent accepted my model of I Robot. In that movie, the uprising was clearly the humanoids revolting against the human race with FORCE. 10. He accepted all of my rules in the opening round. My rule 1 referenced robots rebelling and to destroy the human race. Clearly negative connotation.11. Most importantly, Freeman has forbid semantics for this tournament (5). This is a semantic argument. So yeah, a robot uprising is a bad thing. Next, he argues the Three Laws in I Robot would prevent robots from harming humanity.Apparently my opponent hasn't watched the movie. In I Robot, the three laws are what caused the rebellion. In order to "protect humanity", the robots decided to revolt against the human race with force to stop them from polluting the environment, going to war, etc.Oh yeah, and the law saying robots couldnt harm humans failed. Here is a link to the full I Robot movie. (sorry, I couldnt find this scene individually). At 1:25:00 you will see an army of robots physically attacking human beings with extreme force. Later, one would even assault a fleeing human. So much for them protecting us. (7)Onto his Impact CalculusProbability He says tech not advanced enough for intelligent robots1. This is a debate about fictional occurrences. It doesn't matter whether these things could actually happen.2. Its not like we've developed a zombie-disease either. TimeframeHe says I offered none1. That was his only argument on this, so he offered none either.2. Timeframe is irrelevant. Considering how drastic the two occurrences in the resolution are, its impossible to predict which will come first.MagnitudeHe says uprising would be good1. Extend all eleven arguments as to why thats false.2. His only argument for zombies' power is based off semantics (I'm about to get to that). My argument for the strength of robots is based off logical reasoning.C2:According to him, using the word Apocalypse instantly means the world is destroyed. He said that "apocalypse by sheer definition...points to global destruction".1. What definition? He offered none. 2. He is again arguing off pure semantics rather than what we all know the phrase actually means. Zombie Apocalypse is simply the term used to describe a horde of zombies trying to destroy humanity.3. Definition of Zombie Apocalypse (very first definition off Google Define): "A zombie apocalypse is a particular hypothetical scenario of apocalyptic theory that customarily has a science fiction/horror rationale. In a zombie apocalypse, a widespread rise of zombies hostile to human life engages in a general assault on civilization." (6)Nowhere does it say the world instantly comes to an end. A. Haitian Zombie PowderHe says there is a neurotoxin in Haiti that kills people, and if it becomes an "apocalypse", we all die.There's a lot of things I'd like to say about this, but two things should suffice. 1. The resolution is about zombies, not medicine. Just because "zombie" is in the name of it doesn't make it the same thing. Cigarettes are sometimes called Cancer sticks. That doesn't mean cigarettes actually are cancer. 2. This violates rule three. He can only use an interpretation of zombie as long as it fits the general stereotype. Clearly the world dying from a Haitian neurotoxin isn't something we all think of when we hear of a zombie apocalypse.Onto my case. He made two argumentsFirst he said Uprising isn't necessarily bad. Group this with his C1 and my nine responses.Then he said the following: "my opponent offers no evidence to either back up is claims; nor to link them to the resolution."1. My evidence was from I Robot, which he never denied was a reliable interpretation of a Robot uprising. I give examples from there to show the capabilities an uprising would have.Also he dropped all of my arguments for robots anyway, so they should be counted true regardless.2. If robots have all these capabilities that I listed and he dropped, then clearly if they were to revolt against humanity they would be more disastrous. Thats resolution link, should have been fairly obvious.Briefly over my case in general:My opponent dropped the following argumentsRobots use weaponsRobots more effective with weaponsRobots better range than zombiesRobots use vehiclesRobots avoid damageRobots cut off human food/water supplyRobots use biological weaponsRobots multiply fasterRobots repair themselvesRobots not limited by geographicsIn other words, my entire case went unanswered.Now against the con's speech in general.He violates rule 5, which states that "Con must give arguments for zombies and against bots". He has not given any arguments for zombies. His only offensive contention was about medicine in Haiti, which has been proven nontopical.And once again, he has not debated the resolution at hand. Rather than have what should have been a very fun debate about two hypothetical scenarios, with plenty of ground for both sides, he tried to win based off semantics of "Apocalypse" and trying to change "Robot Uprising" to something good for humanity. Finally, outside of his semantical argument, my entire case was dropped. For all of these reasons I must urge a pro vote.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://www.google.com...4. http://www.google.com...5. http://www.debate.org...6. http://www.google.com...7. http://www.putlocker.com...