Opponent picks topic.

I will now be rebutting my opponant's first two posts. Their words are in bold, with my response underneath.First Post:Machine guns are much more effective, being able to provide a fatal shot with their power if they hit the target's head.Recoil, distance, and the difficulty of aiming all render this an unlikely occurance, especially since shooters are trained specifically NOT to aim for the head (it's a small target that moves more than the rest of the body). Machine guns can also shoot much faster than a cutlass can swing, so the number of bullets, each delivering a fatal shot strongly outweighs the little cutlass, which could be destroyed in seconds.The second half of this sentence makes no sense, so I will be responding to the first half. If the shooter is firing on semi auto, considering how long it takes to line up a shot, the number of zombies they can kill in a given period of time will be no greater than how many a blade wielder can kill. If the weapon is being fired fully automatically, then the waste of bullets renders their kill time even longer in all likelihood. Each bullet, considering the number of zombies, can easily hit at least one zombie. Imagine you holding a cutlass, and thousand of zombies around you. Is it really effective? Of course not. IF there are thousands of zombies surrounding you, you are beyond saving. Fortunately, this is an incredibly unlikely situation. That said, in terms of clearing through a crowd, a blade would be far more effective due to the fact that close quarters are a guarantee, and that the sound a bullet makes would draw the rest of the horde in. Second Post:This does nothing to prove that CUTLASSES are by far better than other weapons. It only tries to prove that blades are better than firearms.As was stated at the beginning of the post, the first contention was only that blades are more effective than other personal weapons. How can my opponant expect to argue effectively if they do not read or pay attention to my arguments? As long as firearms do not break, there is nearly no chance of effort and equipment to maintain.This completely ignores the fact that firearms need to be routinely dissasembled, cleaned and lubricated to keep them functional. I'd also like to point out that this violates the terms of the debate, as it is completely factually incorrect.http://www.wikihow.com...And, handguns are very easy to operate as they are very small.Handguns are actualy quite difficult to aim, especially outside of close ranges due to the way in which they are held (with arm[s] extended rather than being supported against the shoulder). This also makes the recoil difficult to control. Mastery clearly exhibits that they have no experience with handling firearms. A Shashka is much better than cutlass, This is an unsubstantiated claim. In my second contention, I prove that cutlasses are more effective in a zombie apocalypse than other blades.and can easily cut through human skull or personal protective equipment.As can nearly any other cutting sword, although cutlasses are particularly effective due to their shorter, broader blades (as opposed to the shashka sabre, which has a longer, lighter blade).Every hit is certainly NOT a kill. It takes several hits for a cutlass. But for a Shashka it only takes one hit.Once again, Mastery makes an unsubstantiated, factually incorrect claim. As per the rules of the debate, they have effectively forfeited. A sharp, heavy sword length blade will almost always be capable of cutting through a limb or head. The cutlasses shortness and broadness makes it particularly good at this in close quarters.Besides, firearms shoot so quick that even if every few hits is one kill.I've established why this is impractical. Yes, the blade could be swung continuously but that exposes you to a likely chance of a self-hit.Unlikely, especially if the wielder has been trained. The sabre or cutlass, for example, is designed to be used with circular motion that allows it to be swung repeatedly. Since cutlasses and Shashka are both swords, I can assume they're equal until you prove otherwise. That means that cutlasses are not by far the best weapons. I have proved otherwise by highlighting design differences in length, blade width, and the point of balance.Since cutlasses and Shashka are both swords, Shashka is no louder than a cutlass.Correct.