I feel it is my need to brazenly defy the Everything tradition of sticking to factual information and to brazenly embrace the Everything tradition of totally avoiding the facts, rather to post on entirely silly topics. Let us proceed.
One should not rule out the possibility that on the moon
, a shark
's natural swimming motions might not aid it considerably. This is allowed as a "given
" in this debate
, but it undermines the nature of the debate itself: to weigh and compare the worth of each species
's innate killing technique
. Without being confined to its swimming motions, a very large shark will easily destroy a very large lion
. Thus, we cannot rule out this section of the debate with a "given" without defeating the debate entirely in favour of the shark.
: While there is obviously no viscous
, water-like medium by which the shark can propel itself, the flopping motion
s made by any landed fish would be enough to propel a shark over a rather radical distance on the moon, where it would not be propelled on earth, due to lessened gravity
We do, as you suggested, have to assume that there is some sort of way for each party to breathe
as they would in their natural environment, the lion in a normal atmosphere, the shark underwater. Starting from the beginning, you have a number of serious basic principles to lie on the table:
A shark would kill a lion underwater. This is because:
- A lion would kill a shark on land. This is because:
- A shark can breathe underwater. A lion cannot.
- A shark can swim underwater. A lion cannot.
These are both indebatable
, I believe. We rule out all considerations of breathing, of course, for the sake of the debate, thereby ridding each of one advantage over the other. Consider that while a lion can swim in some way or another, it cannot swim underwater
, meaning that it must "doggy paddle
". This makes its principal attack quite useless, leaving it only to vaguely swipe about with its paws as it swims, a sitting duck, if you will, to the deft monster of the deep below.
So, we remove each being from its natural habitat, and place it in a position in which it is supposedly unfamiliar--the moon. Naturally, it would seem that a lion would be far better adapted to this terrain
, being that it is earth-like in most respects, albeit with low gravity
. The shark, of course, would be totally out of place. Given that neither animal was raised
in this environment, the lion would certainly adapt
more quickly and slay the shark with ease.
However, this may be a conclusion without base. After all, are we not to say that this shark and this lion were both bred
on the moon? This would be a natural conclusion
, actually, if they were to be found on the moon at all. Perhaps this is some sort of arranged space-battle
between wily space-gamblers
. Considering this, I think it very possible that the shark would have already adapted to the technique of flopping
against the ground for propulsion
, or perhaps using the soft earth as a medium for the swishing back-and-forth of dust for a snake-like
momentum. The shark, being the naturally superior warrior
, would then be perfectly able to maneuver
in such a way that the lion would have no luck in finding its weaker side to exploit.
Clearly, it seems, the shark would be at an advantage, regardless of its motility
Perhaps, one day, we will know for sure. I propose, as part of the eternal time-capsule
that is the internet
, that this be taken as a sport in such a time that it is possible to achieve its technological
means. Surely, in the lawless, barbarous wasteland
that will be the moon, money-mad space-profiteers
will find a way and place for such adventures
to be considered. My thanks to you all.
I should add that an additional debate should occur which takes into account what sorts of weapons each might excel with. I think a shark could do pretty fair damage with a really sharp knife.