Scar is the True Protagonist of "The Lion King"

For the voters, I am also very busy these next few days, being finals week, and I simply cannot afford to wait for Con to finish his arguments during my time to argue. I asked Con in a PM to finish his arguments by a certain time, and at the time of this writing, nothing had been posted. Therefore, any arguments in the comments for this round must be considered invalid, as I will have already responded to those presented. Thank you for the clarification, this observation, I accept. 1: Favoritism - I in no way back out of my word, but my opponent misinterprets my meaning. I stated that Mufasa relies only on his strength as a leader, not that he was unintelligent. Scar's manipulations are proof of intelligence, and they do NOT show that he cares only for himself. I would like to point out, once again, that Scar's actions pulled hundreds out of starvation, yet Con states that he cares only for his own agenda. I would like to thank Con for spelling out the aging process, but I see one fatal flaw. He states that "it can be proven that Mufasa would have reigned longer than Scar. " This is interesting to me, seeing that he argues earlier that Mufasa's reign was cut short when he was murdered, which is true. It also happens to be exactly what happened to Scar. I'd like to note that the drought, which forced all the prey to leave, ended not a half hour after Sarabi confronted Scar about it. Had Simba not shown, the water supply would have been restored, and the herds would have returned as they did at the end of the film. This would restore the balance that had existed before the drastic event, and in turn, restored the ability of both lion and hyena to survive. If Simba hadn't killed Scar, albeit indirectly, his reign would have continued to flourish. 2a: Overhunting - Actually, there is no evidence that any predators died under Scar. Sarabi wouldn't confront Scar after they started dying off, it would have to be before. The situation is also true with the hyenas. How difficult would it be to pack up and leave if they were starving to death? In addition, in accepting a drought toward the end of Scar's reign, Con accepts that overhunting did NOT cause the lack of prey, as he has argued throughout the debate. As I have stated many a time, Scar hoped to rebalance the populations of lions and hyenas. The drought was a way to thin the herd, as had been his goal throughout his reign. This does not mean that he didn't care about his pride, it means that he didn't care ONLY for his pride, showing more fair and just leadership than those preceding and following him. 2b: Scar's Motives - I extend my argument 2c: Elitism - I would ask that Con and the voters take another look at that source. It states that hyenas are scavengers that CAN hunt. Had they hunted for themselves, THEN there would have been overhunting. Because they survived by scavenging, overhunting did NOT occur. Also, and I believe I stated this before, Kovu was alive at the END of Scar's rule, not during the majority of it. 3-8: I extend my arguments I would like to take the remainder of this final round to make closing remarks. Due to the nature of this debate format, I am unable to respond to anything Con states in his final round. This is a distinct advantage in his favor, giving my opponent the final word. So, I must ask something of the voters. Take my place after Con responds. Look at the information presented to you, from both sides, and look for holes in the story that Disney has told you. Ask yourselves, how can leaders that condemn a massive percentage of their population to starve, only to slightly improve the lives of the few elite that the story chooses to follow, be considered heroic? How can the leader that allows the masses to survive for the entirety of his reign, at the expense of the ruler that oppressed them, be considered villainous? How can an occurrence as natural as the weather, and its effects, be blamed on an individual? How can ending an elitist society, in favor of a natural balance, be considered evil? How can someone that takes into account the needs of the many, not just the few, and acts to provide those needs, be considered a tyrant? How can someone that maintains support of half of the former elite society be seen as an unjust king? How can a leader that removes the slightest traces of progress that occurred previous to his rule be viewed as a just, fair, and kind ruler? Voters, if any of the above questions were answered with something to the effect of, "they can't", or, "they shouldn't", then you must accept that you have been mislead about the role of these characters. Once again, I will ask that you allow yourself to take a step back from the dramatic tone of The Lion King. Let yourself examine the facts objectively, and to develop your opinion based on what you have observed here, not based on what the film wants your opinion to be. Whether you now agree that Scar was wrongly viewed in the film or not is now out of my hands.