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

Indeed, it has been most invigorating. "I have wrote Humans was typed there and from what I have seen around the world we are a pretty big contender on a world scope." Ah, apologies. I did not comprehend what you meant when you stated, "...roach, rat, amoeba, ant, flea, archaebacteria, and one of the most recent humans." I personally didn't realize that you meant to correlate human beings into your argument. I negate this assertion, as humans have no standing as, "King of Beasts." I had understood in round one that this debate would regard only members of the kingdom animalia or metazoa. Beast is defined in Dictionary.com as, "1. any nonhuman animal" [1]. Animals such as the lion, tiger, bear, komodo dragon and even the flea all are classed under the kingdom, "Animalia;" humans are not. Humans are classified in the genus: Homo and the species H. Sapien, thereby clearing them of the kingdom, "Animalia." Human fail to fall within the resolution of this argument. Humans would, indeed be more intelligent and fitting as "king," except that they have no place in this debate. To further prove that humans never fit the scope of this debate, refer back to point 3 in round 1. I addressed man to be ranked above all of the "Kingdom animalia," and rather addressed that more tigers were killed by man with primitive weapons than lions. Since humans do not fit the premise, this argument is therefore refuted and I will return back to the "Kingdom Animalia." My opponent seems to believe that if an organism can survive under hostile conditions, it should be the king of beasts due to its resilience. Pro disregards beauty, majesty, method of living, mythology, size or "Pre-eminence" among animals. A rat is neither symbolic or natural to be a king. A flea is a parasite that plagues hapless beings and exist from the well being of a beneficiary "Host." While this does compare to the monarchs who garnered wealth at the expense of peasants', this is definitely not an ideal of a symbolic king of animalia. Fleas survive only a few days, if they can't find a host (just over a hundred days, if they can). In contrast, a male lion lives to be from ten to fifteen years old (if not ousted by a younger male). Rats live only a maximum of three years, lice live only thirty to fourty days, ants live up to six months etc. Insects and parasites do not live for any great length of time. There is not much more for me to refute, that I can find. Thence, I shall even demonstrate the kingly manner in which a usurping male lion challenges the current monarch of the pride to an honourable fight (rarely to the death). If the current monarch wins, he reinstates his power and bans the potential usurper - much like a king would exile a challenger of the throne. Thence, I have refuted that every single "beast" that my opponent brought up (which were quite diverse- my opponent never settled on a single animal that could challenge the lion, which was the premise of the debate) could replace the lion as "King of Beasts". The male lion is the most pre-eminent patriarch in the world! Thanks for perusing this debate. Thanks also to Pro for founding this debate, as it has been most enjoyable. Vote Con. : ) [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...