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 and
prowess. 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.
Consider this: While there is obviously no
viscous, water-like medium by which the shark can propel itself, the
flopping motions 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 lion would kill a shark on land. This is because:
A shark would kill a lion underwater. 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.