The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,102 times Debate No: 13734
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)




My argument is that the lion is not the king of beasts or the jungle due to the fact many other organisms outperform it and they do not live in the jungle technically it is the savanna.


Greetings Pro, good luck and have fun. Thanks for perusing the debate, all.

I will begin by stating that my opponent has not offered a single alternative, "King of Beasts" or even of the Jungle or Savannah. Thence, the contention that I support stands.

Since Pro has the burden of the proof, I won't spend very long, but I might as well make a few points.

1. The male lion gathers its family about in a pride - the pride is the most feared group of animals existent - other mammals, even the hyenas and elephants, clear the watering hole when the lions attend. A lone tiger would steer clear of a pride of lions.

2. Unlike the bigger and heavier mammals (such as rhinoceros, hippopotamus and elephant), the lion is carnivorous and equipped with natural weapons, making it a killing machine. The lions will prey upon larger mammals, also:

3. Very few men have killed a lion with anything but a high powered hunting rifle. Bengal Tigers were destroyed frequently by spear wielding or musket toting Indians.

4. In mythology and heraldry, it the lion that depicts the toughest or most royal - not the tiger. Many human kings utilized various depictions of the lion for their Coat of Arms, effectively adding to the respect and the status of the lion as "King".

That's all for now, as I'll let my opponent have the floor. As a note, before attempting to rebut my arguments, Pro must first prove that another animal could assume the phenomonal status of a male Lion, king of the pride, the savannah and the jungle - as well as acclaimed predator.

Debate Round No. 1


How is the pride the most feared for I fear more from a female Grizzly Bear with its cubs than any pride of lions and many have fought and killed lions without the aid of modern weapons look at some of the tribe in Africa such as the Maasai peoples who used to hunt lions for generations (now not so much due to the Lion getting on the endangered species list and new laws prohibiting the killing of this animal). These bigger heavier animals you have mentioned are all herbivores hence they would not hunt Tigers, Leopards, and sometimes even Hyenas will take on bigger prey than themselves plus most of the time lions act like scavengers taking other animals prey. Your argument about very few men taking out Lions was taken out in an earlier argument and needless to say as long as there has been humans there have been powerful beasts which humanity has taken out with spears, guns, roads, and fire no animal (of the large carnivore stock) has yet to survive the human scourge take for instance the remnants of an organism found in Australia it is related to the Komodo Dragon except several times larger went extinct beacuse a simple people who traveled there on rafts destroyed it with sticks, stones, and fire this beast was stronger than any Lion yet it was destroyed by people without any forms of metal or ballistics technology. The only reason people did that beacuse a Lions mane was a prized object to have and it was a rarity nothing more it is also due to the overestimation on what a Lions power was the same thing that happens periodically in history when a force overestimates its own power in comparison to that of the enemy. As for your last argument who needs a king it is not necessary but if you truly need one think of species that are dang near impossible to eradicate, highly adaptive, and could survive most situations such as the roach, rat, amoeba, ant, flea, archaebacteria, and one of the most recent humans. My opponent must prove to me that these organisms I have listed are indeed inferior to the Lion for these organisms are superior to that of the Lion in most areas.


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. (

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. 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]" ( 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." (

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
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank my opposition for this great debate

My opponent has left out many of the key details of my previous arguments for one I never said a bear could take out a lion although it could I simply stated a female bear with its cubs is more dangerous than a pride of lions, you give no evidence to support your claims that the organisms mentioned are easy to eradicate although all the scientific evidence supports that these organisms are the survivors of pretty much every mass extinction event on earth, you say that hyenas are primarily scavengers which is true but remember the same goes for the lion ad hyenas are frequently seen attacking lions and beating them. The lion was one feared but now the lion is a pathetic species on the endangered list so don't even bother to say we have a lot to ear from it considering it spends mot of the day asleep and in an idle state and lions steal food from other species (such as cheetahs) get this lions spend more time scavenging than hunting for most of their hunting attempts go in vain. I never said that that species related to the komodo dragon should be king I simply made a comparison of its powers to that of the lion and how primitive humans eradicated it. Your flea scum argument is pointless for how many times throughout history have we thought of our kings as scum well let me put it like this: always there will always be those who oppose the ruler and you still haven't refuted my points about these organisms survival ratios and how effective they are at survival. Those 3 extinct species of rat are not the the rats that currently live today which are the species I am talking about look at how many species of lion and hominid are extinct I assure you there are a lot more than rats. Quote "Roach, rat, amoeba, ant, flea, archaebacteria and grizzly bear" grizzly bear was not in there you obviously did not read what 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 when it comes to being top dog (king).

I listed humans being a great contender to become the king of beasts in the fact we live on every continent, we have gone into space, our only natural predators are ourselves and a few types of virus, we have one of the longest lifespans, we no longer need to hunt, we have sent more organisms to the extinction list than any other organism, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates, and we have come to a point where we can take aesthetic appeal over practical appeal. We humans have achieved these things in just about 5,000 years unlike the lion which has a history slightly longer than our own. Humans are also not on the endangered species list and show no signs of going extinct. Ants are also another key contender capable of lifting several times their own body weight a mastery of their own biology as well as agriculture. They are a highly unionized and orderly species which humans by comparison do not even meet up to. They are many times older than we humans and lions and have no signs of becoming extinct anytime soon.

I do apologize for some of the out of order-ness of my addressing of his contentions in the 1st paragraph of this round but my opponent has failed to address any of my previous contentions without adding things to my prior arguments hence his arguments bear no weight.

I would once again like to thank my adversary for this debate.



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 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. : )

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago

good topic
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
I'm pretty sure the most dangerous and powerful land animal is the polar bear. However, that doesn't necessarily make him king.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
I may take this debate (if it's mythology-wise), so first I wish to know if this debate about lions is species-wise or mythology-wise?
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
"train of thought"

Who would have guessed? :P
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
Well this is only for entertainment purposes so who really cares plus I hate typing up my debates I prefer writing for it carries less complications with my train of thought . . .
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
Change your debate style.

"My argument is that all 'x' are 'q'.


You've done that on practically all of your debates... and lost them ALL. It clearly isn't effective. Abraham Lincoln once said "I don't think much of a man who is no wiser today than he was yesterday."
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
Kings are not supposed to outperform. They are simply figure heads. The whole point of beiing king is to live like the male lion. Eat, sleep, and mate. That is the life of a king.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
The Instigator should use the sources in argumentation rather than listing them.
Posted by Demauscian 6 years ago
Lions have been found in Indian forests and once lived as far north as Europe. So, they once did live in parts of some jungles until their population was decimated by humans and they were confined into the savanna.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24