Scar is the True Protagonist of "The Lion King"

My opponent misinterprets my points against his observation. My second point stated that one cannot discredit their opponent's logic without evidence, while the third stated that one's logic can be based on assumptions gathered from the evidence. No contradiction takes place, only a need for evidence to make assumptions and draw conclusions. My opponent and I have discussed the lack of availability online of the resources mentioned, as they are primarily in print. 1: Favoritism - In this situation, Mufasa's strength served him well. However, this is neither a) evidence pointing away from Scar's abilities as a leader, or b) evidence proving Mufasa's inherent "good". Scar's intelligence is shown throughout the film in his ability to manipulate situations and individuals toward his goals, not simply through his opinion. Con argues that Mufasa took the throne at age 9, yet there is no true way to determine Mufasa's age, other than that he must be older than 3. An estimate of Mufasa's remaining reign cannot be considered accurate. 2a: Overhunting - Yes, the Pridelands ran out of food...after at least 3 years. It is shown in the Elephant Graveyard that hundreds of hyenas survived on very little food. This means that another outside cause MUST have been present to force the herds to leave. The sickly appearance of the land at the end of Scar's rule, as well as its flammability, suggests a large drought. Such an event would force prey to move in search of water. Since the massive increase of food needs that my opponent believes there was would RAPIDLY decrease the population of prey, this influx cannot have been as drastic as he would have the voters believe. Being that there is no official reason for the hyenas' banishment, any theories put forward by my opponent or myself will be only speculation. To avoid speculating, I will not provide an alternative reason for the original banishment. 2b: Scar's Motives - I will raise a question for the consideration of all readers. If Scar's purpose for gaining the throne was to gain limitless power over the Pridelanders, would he have remained in a situation in which they would starve? Kill the subjects my opponent believes he was so desperate to gain? This would leave him with no one to rule over, an entirely illogical chain of events for a power-hungry leader. Therefore, I maintain that Scar ruled with the goal of lowering populations of both lions and hyenas, allowing members of both species to live. 2c: Elitism - The arguments toward the hyenas' eating and its strain on the ecosystem can be seen above. Also, and I realize that this is a minor contradiction, hyenas are primarily scavengers, living off of other predators remaining hunts. The lionesses would have to slightly increase their workload, a reasonable task, seeing their success without the hyenas, and leave some nourishment for the hyenas, as is the natural way. Kovu, an incredibly young cub at the END of Scar's reign, would be far too young to rule in the event of Scar's death, and nonexistent early in Scar's reign. There was a male present, but not yet a POSSIBLE eligible heir. 3: Character Arc - The decision to return to the Pridelands showed a deviation from Hakuna Matata, but the damage was done. Simba's developmental years were spent trying to push away his past, not to become a better leader as he should have been. Though I am aware that he was uninformed about his status in the pride, the fact remains that he was entirely unprepared for the position he took. The single moment of maturity was greatly dampened by the years preceding it. 4: Scar Maintaining Rule - Zira WAS the leader of a pride while raising Kovu, proving that a lioness is capable of doing so in this franchise. 5: Who Killed Mufasa - Simba killing Scar would have been the least intelligent move possible by Simba. Killing the ONE lion capable of clearing his name, even when he wasn't aware that his name should be cleared, would have doomed Simba. In addition, the pride was aware that Simba was a cub at the time of Mufasa's death, so it is unlikely that he would have been killed even if Scar hadn't confessed. Con makes the mistake of stating that the lionesses jump to Simba's rule, while a large percentage remain true to Scar. Simba had proven NOTHING to the people he hoped to lead, his only credentials for being a good leader are in his parentage. 6: Banishment of Scar's Followers - There is a key flaw in my opponent's logic. Stating that the Outlanders rejoined the Pridelands at the end of the sequel is true...but not because of Simba. Simba was prepared to battle to the death, recklessly risking the lives of those in his own pride. The union was a result of the actions of Kovu and Kiara, which lessened the tensions that Simba had a large hand in creating, not ending. Simba grudgingly accepts the resolution, he was not responsible for it. Being that my opponent did not comment on my attack, stating that Simba's birthright did NOT make him a good or just king, the point carries through this round. 7: Justification for Murder - Again, my opponent's logic is flawed. Firstly, he makes the assumption that the hero of a story must be successful in each and every thing that they set out to do, which is entirely false. Secondly, Scar DID save lives, just not the ones that the film or my opponent deem worthy of saving. As I have shown, the hyenas consumed far less food than the lions, and they managed to coexist for several years. Lionesses doing what they've been doing since the species has existed, hunting, does not show oppression, it is continuation. The fact that they did not leave food behind for a population of scavengers, as is the natural way, shows the elite class that existed under Mufasa. Some lions and some hyenas may have eventually died under Scar, but the balance would be restored, and a single species would not be singled out to die entirely by the wishes of those that would live. The hyenas were not oppressive, they survived as nature intended, and it worked UNTIL a DROUGHT drastically and rapidly decreased the prey available. Also, any killing of another is murder, I'm not arguing that Scar didn't kill Mufasa. However, look to the French Revolution, an oddly similar example. An oppressive monarch was executed, freeing the masses under a new leader. Was the monarch murdered? Yes. Was he good and just? No. This situation is almost exactly the same. 8: Definitions - While Oxford may favor Con's definition, the connotation of "protagonist" suggests the hero or "good-guy". My opponent even points out that this is a common error, meaning that this connotation is more widely accepted than the appropriate definition. I will admit that the phrasing of the question may have been technically improper, however, Con did not respond in a single sentence that amounted to "The story followed Simba, he was clearly the main character." For the sake of clarity, the claim being made is as follows: Scar was the True HERO of "The Lion King". To conclude, I ask that you remove yourselves from the dramatic story for a moment, in which a vile uncle's greed led to a terrible murder, and the heroic son comes to reclaim his birthright to save everyone from certain doom. Look at the timeline, and how it shows that things did NOT quickly fall apart for Scar. Look at the relations before and after Scar's death between all groups presented to you. Look at how well Simba and Mufasa ruled over those NOT included in their selective elite society. You will see, if you can overcome the emotions that the film tapped into, that Scar was the most just ruler to the most subjects. He was the most successful in maintaining peace, and the most efficient in usage of resources available. That Simba and Mufasa, the "heroes", were oppressive and unjust to the many, and kind to the few that the film follows. These true villains caused the deaths of too many, while maintaining their elite support.