The Lion Is Not The King Of Beasts Or The Jungle . . .

Thanks for the punctual post, Pro. : ) I am finding it most difficult to sort out my opponent's statements, but I gather that pro has proclaimed that the, "Roach, rat, amoeba, ant, flea, archaebacteria and grizzly bear" are decent contenders as "King of Beasts," simply because they are difficult to eradicate. However, would one ever want the flea, the cockroach or the rat to represent the "King" of all known mammals? I hardly think so! The rat is a rodent - a pestilence which is disgusting, disease infested (carrying pathogens), volatile and routs about in one's rubbish, living in squalid conditions. The rat is, rather than kingly, a bane of humanity. Also, my opponent claims that they are, "dang near impossible to eradicate," which isn't entirely true. At least three species of rat are extinct. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In similar fashion, fleas are causing an endemic in the United States, infecting numerous homes, hotels etc. even causing cinemas to close. Is this truly a king? I think not! A flea would be classified as, "scum." My opponent contends that the Grizzly bear with her cubs could destroy an entire pack of lions. http://www.youtube.com... That video featured a smaller version of the Felidae family, a lone cougar, against a powerful grizzly. The Grizzly decided it wasn't worth the fight - compare the cougar to a pack of lions, which also nurture and guard their kittens. My opponent never specifies the organism related to the komoto dragon, or why it should be "king". Next, my opponent claims that lions are scavengers, but, "Even Hyenas will take on bigger prey." It is quite difficult for a hyena to find other game that is smaller, "The striped hyena is primarily a scavenger, though it will occasionally attack and kill any defenceless animal it can overcome,[31] and will supplement its diet with fruits.[32]" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In contrast, "[Lions'] prey consists mainly of large mammals, with a preference for wildebeest, impalas, zebras, buffalo, and warthogs in Africa and nilgai, wild boar, and several deer species in India. Many other species are hunted, based on availability. Mainly this will include ungulates weighing between 50 and 300 kg (110–660 lb) such as kudu, hartebeest, gemsbok, and eland.[4] Occasionally, they take relatively small species such as Thomson's Gazelle or springbok. Lions hunting in groups are capable of taking down most animals, even healthy adults... giraffes and buffalos are often taken in certain regions... Occasionally hippopotamus is also taken... they specialise in hunting atypical prey species; this is the case at the Savuti river, where they prey on elephants.... are capable of killing other predators such as leopards, cheetahs, hyenas, and wild dogs, though (unlike most felids) they seldom devour the competitors after killing them." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The quotes I have provided clearly indicate that a lion is to be the most feared animal of the savannah, of beasts, and of the "Jungle." A hyena will try to steal food, more often than not. A Cheetah, for example, often works extremely hard for its food, but then is so exhausted that it can't capitalize, and the hyenas will move in and steal it right from under the cheetah's nose - literally. Individuals are rarely concerned by elephants or rhinoceros because these are herbivorous, and they may even allow humans to approach, since they are generally peaceful animals. Somebody in the comments thread stated that the lions are kings due to their lifestyle. I appreciate the insight into that - the lions are, indeed, one of the most seemingly comfortable animals in existence. They do not need to be wary of approaching predators (other than bipeds toting rifles), they will lounge about for up to 20 hours daily, eat for over 50 minutes and hunt at leisure. Does this not seem to be, other than the sloth, one of the best forms of life an animal could have? In popular literature and media, the lion is one of the most commemorated beasts. The popular drama, "The Lion King" is an accurate description of the kingly nature described by man. Thence, Pro has failed to prove that any other animal could take the lion's place. [31] Pocock 1941, p. 72 [32] Heptner & Sludskii 1992, p. 31-33