A Zombie Apocalypse would be More Effective in causing Living Mans extinction than a Robot Uprising

I would rather leave 'desire and intended'. It is after all, the desired outcome of our premises, not ourselves. Either way though it does not necessarily matter, so long as is implied what the intended outcome is. I will not deny my opponents claim on the analogy of the 'Salem Witch hysteria on steroids', rather I encourage it. I would very much suspect that if any kind of organized resistance does arise they would be overloaded on panic and kill anyone with so much as a dirt smudge. This only adds to the eradication of man. The Zombie panic is causing people to kill one another, thus adding to the outcome of mans extinction, therefore, adding to my case. But I do take argument with Rahl's case that people will defend robotics. I think many people are aware of the dangers a robot uprising holds. Once the news gets out that a robot has been gifted with AI, there will most likely be mass protesting. Governments may even put in pre-defenses if such an event were to occur (of course assuring the public that it is only a precaution). Also it is possible they will mandate that every robot have any easy access weak spot that could terminate it just incase, and make public announcements on where these places are. As you pointed out, we are all aware of robots, and thus, they will also be aware on how to fight them. As I stated before, this is not a virus with an origin point, but world wide, meaning all continents are effected. But if your bio-containment theory does come into effect that only goes further into killing mankind. Zombies do not act like an army where they have a campout that can be easily barraged, but walk among people as they were once people. This means that if any government acted on such a tactic and bombed certain areas to ash, they would kill zombies but also probably much more people. Therefore, this argument as well adds to my conclusion. But your theory also works against you directly, as I could say the same thing. These robots must have a power source, and can also be speculated that they have a main computer base. All that a government would have to do in defense is 'nuke' (your definition) either of those two sources. Rebuilding either would require time, granted less if robots rather than humans built them, but time nonetheless. Such an intricate and hefty design on either source would take at least 1-2 weeks, not to mention finding the necessary supplies (most if not all of which would be held by humans). This valuable time would severely cripple the robot side, giving humans that much headway to develop and execute a hard offensive. Therefore your 'nuking' works for me. Any company has to meet guidelines by the federal government. This is why there are health inspections on food and medicine, and safety requirements on cars and planes (among others). If the government chooses to restrict or limit a companies product, they have no choice, otherwise they will be shut down and prosecuted. Any businessman would probably rather shutdown a few assembly lines than risk his life of comfort. Speed - If anyone has ever been in a crowded place, you know that someone briskly trotting still has some momentum when they come into contact with you. So, we can logically conclude that even if the maximum speed a zombie can reach is only a light jog, it still is effective, especially as most attacks will likely be indoors, where 50 mph doesn't have all that much use. Yes, robots might be more organized, but because they are, and have to use technology in order to, all of which humans have access to view and decode, it only increases the chances that an effective human defense can be mounted before this sneak attack occurs. A robot hijacking of a car and plane would also not go unnoticed, and probably would be front page news, adding to suspicion and defense. The robots have to work like an organized army, establishing bases, tactics, enlisting, all of which you have pointed out, and takes time. When they finally do put their plans into action, that has probably already been a month of only PREPARATION, all as I've pointed out could be intercepted or concluded upon by humans thus calling on pre-defense. Because of that, when they do actually execute their plans, already there are preparations in place, and a full scale war, which even thought the robots will win, has to take time (1 year at least). But a zombie outbreak acts just like a disease, spreading from one person to the next internally. The surprise factor and lack of a cure will only increase the speed that the infection will spread. Quick stats: in the Civil War, more soldiers died from disease than gunshots. That same principal applies here. Like I said before, the zombies benefit directly from mans death, only strengthening it and causing more to die. As much as an organized war kills people, disease kills far, far more. So, while robots have strength and would win any war, they still have to make and fight it, where as zombies act on pure disease-like instinct, causing more death, achieving faster the desired goal of mans extinction. On suicide - religions can have as many rules as they want, but people have to follow them. People won't think straight in such a crisis as the zombie one, and will turn to whatever the strongest influence is, being a fanatic preacher saying to join God faster in heaven by killing yourself or whatever. People will believe anything that fits the present case, and mass suicide is one of those (Such as the 1978 Jamestown incident). On Decomposition - true, some shots will cripple a zombies movement, but what you have to realize is that half the movement that humans can do is only by will. If someone is shot in the harm, they still can move their arms in certain ways by the muscles that weren't damaged, the resulting "Ah, I can't move my arm" is mostly due to the sheer pain. Zombies don't feel pain. So while certain shots can damage the movement, not all b far. Besides, most wounds would be to the torso, where only useless organs (to zombies) are stored, which would not inhibit them at all. Next, you make the claim about anti-zombie tactics. What you are neglecting is the tangents. While your tactic may work in some cases, the majority are panicked, unorganized, and only fending for themselves. Far too little common people would have the 'fight' side of their Fight or Flight instincts on, and even those in all probability would not be computer nerds. Even if your tactic was employed, not all zombies are automatically in one place chasing the guy, but coming from all around. He could also misstep falling into his own trap, or walk unwittingly into a zombie if he turned into an alley for cover. So this argument o yours, while a possibility, would be nowhere near as effective as you make it out to be, and any results are so small they are hardly worth comparison to the worldwide scale. Next, robots can build, I don't deny that, but like I said before, building takes time. A robot army that would be effective against an organized military would take weeks to build, and then carry out the war, not to mention pre-counter strikes to factories made by humans. So this result is still much slower, and far less ineffective than zombie hordes converting whomever they can reach, especially in large cities. The Matrix vs DofD was only a comparison to the two best examples of either premise, not an actual argument on my side. And the zombies speed doesn't matter so much as the effectiveness of their conversions. This last argument is a fallacy towards the main debate. It is purely hypothetical in both cases. Both are extremely unlikely, and have major flaws in how they could even happen. But we are discussing IF they occurred, not if they COULD occur, what the results would be, and which is more effective to mans extinction. So, this argument is off topic, and thus irrelevant to the main case. I suggest you not try and discuss it further.