Scar is the True Protagonist of "The Lion King"

I accept my opponent's first observation, however, I cannot accept his second. The grounds for this rejection include the following information: - this observation is flawed on a fundamental level, in that there are records, acknowledged as canon by the creators of the film, in existence, which show key events prior to the film - what my opponent considers "solid logic" may differ from my own, as well as that of our judges. Because of this, neither of us has the right to decide which logic is sound and which is flawed without providing evidence - logic does not need to be based on definite evidence in order to be considered valid. It can also be based on reasonable assumptions derived from the evidence presented With this out of the way, I will go about responding to my opponent's claims using a similar method of organization. 1: Favoritism - While I agree with the premise that Mufasa was indeed a reasonably successful leader, my opponent fails to provide any conclusive evidence that this success was a result of anything other than his physical strength. At no point in the film does Mufasa show the ability of his mind during his rule, only intimidation and dominance. Also, my opponent claims that Mufasa held control over the Pridelands for his entire life. This claim is entirely false, as it is unknown when Mufasa took the throne from his father, Ahadi. However, based on how rapidly Nala gave birth to Kiara, it can be deduced that a king bears cubs very soon after assuming the throne. Based on Simba's youth in the beginning of the first film, Mufasa presumably held the throne for, at most, three years, and as little as one. Note that the maximum estimate is the minimal estimate for Scar's time of rule, meaning that Mufasa's successful rule could *possibly* have lasted as long as Scar's. This, although not as a stand-alone piece of information, provides further evidence for Scar's, and his intelligence's, able and successful leadership. 2a: Over hunting - My opponent contradicts his own request in "Observation 2" when he speculates on what the Elephant Graveyard might have been. I ask that he either refrain from making these assumptions in the future, or that he not use my own similar assumptions as a way to degrade the argument that I am making. By my opponent's logic, I could, within the boundaries of his usage, but not within the boundaries which he has set for me, respond to the question I have been asked with, "What's to say that it was? " However, I intend to support that generic response with evidence from the film(s). At no point, in any of the films, is there any indication that the Pridelands were at any point suffering a decline. They are consistently described as rich and sustaining. The territory that the hyenas were banished to was presumably outside the Pridelands, since it was referred to as the hyenas' territory, and they were also said to have been banished. This suggests that they were not merely confined to a certain area which they depleted, but removed from land that could sustain them, leaving the question previously posed. Why? 2b: Scar's Motives - My opponent, although forgivable, continues to base his arguments on the idea that Scar was the power hungry tyrant that the film portrayed him as. He fails to recognize the likelihood that Scar intended to reduce the number of predators in the Pridelands, both lions and hyenas, so that members of all species could survive there, not only the lions that lived under Mufasa's and Ahadi's rule. Scar recognized the possibility of both lions and hyenas surviving at an equal rate, not just a single group. 2c: Elitism - My opponent appears to argue against an elite class, yet he stands by a regime that supported an elite class of lions. The lions under Ahadi, Mufasa, and later, Simba, held a monopoly over the food supply, leaving the "lower class" of hyenas to starve. I must ask my opponent, how is one elite class better than another? Also, there is no evidence in the film stating that the hyenas, also predators, did not hunt. This is an assumption made by my opponent. As to Scar's supply of food, he is the last surviving male of the pride. If he starves, there is no generation to follow. *Of course* he's going to be kept alive by the others, he's their only chance to continue the pride. 3: Character Arc - The years in the jungle to not serve to show the impact of Mufasa's death on Simba, with the exception of the opening scene, the scene under the stars with Timon and Pumbaa, and the scene with Rafiki. The rest shows him learning "no worries" from a meerkat and a pig, and growing physically stronger, yet my opponent makes the case that this made for an ideal leader? I will speak to the "just ruler" remark later in this round. 4: Scar Maintaining Rule - My opponent's case that a male replacement was needed before confronting the king is blatantly disproven by the sequel, in which a pride of lionesses and two male cubs, not yet of age to rule, clearly opposed Simba's rule. They wish to operate under the same ruling system, only a different leader, Zira. The lionesses that made up this revolt came from the same pride as the other lionesses, showing that a revolt was possible. 5: Who Killed Mufasa - The fighters against Scar were members of Mufasa's elite class, so they would obviously fight his killer. There is no evidence that a fight would not have ensued against Simba had Scar not confessed. Also, this case in no way proves Simba's leadership capacity as my opponent states. 6: Banishment of Scar's Followers - My opponent's analogy is flawed. Simba, a male, depended on the lionesses to keep him and the pride alive. Had he killed anyone with ties to Scar, he would only doom himself. The fact that Scar had roughly as many supporters as Simba at the time of their banishment furthers the point that Scar was a successful ruler. Also, being next-in-line for the throne does not make for a "good" king, only a proper one. If a more capable ruler was present, then a revolt becomes more attractive. This proves Simba's partial failure as a leader, as well as Scar's success, in the form of a lasting legacy that his supporters would die for. 7: Justification for Murder - This is an entirely different debate, but I will comment nonetheless. A hero generally is forced to make a sacrifice for the greater good. Saving hundreds of lives is an admirable and possibly heroic cause, even if the means of doing so are considered immoral by some. This was a necessary evil, and Mufasa's death *ended* the elitist class that my opponent argued against earlier. An oppressor to the masses was killed, freeing them. This can be seen when taken out of the tragic context that the film put it in. 8: Definitions - My opponent provided an accurate definition for the word "protagonist". He did not, however, provide all definitions of the word. He conveniently added the definition that supports his case, while leaving out the one that supports mine. Therefore, I feel I must add this for the voters to be aware of. Protagonist - a leader, proponent, or supporter of a cause Antagonist - one that contends with or opposes another By these definitions, my usage in the question and throughout my argument remain valid I ask the voters and my opponent to look outside of what the films are showing you about right and wrong. Then, and only then, you may see that you have been mislead by popular opinion, and through closer analysis, the true hero of this story will become clear.