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

Dogs cannot be Anarcho-Socialists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 879 times Debate No: 63857
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




My proposition: A lot of people say dogs' love is unconditional and they are "loyal" animals. Evidence proves the contrary, however. Instead, dogs manipulate people and use coercion and even violence in order to get what they want, just like authoritarian governements. Ultimately, this means that dogs are incompatible with a truly Anarcho-Socialist-Syndicalist worldview and, furthermore, dogs should be prohibited by the Anarchist Politbureau.

Here is my evidence:

1. A dog expects food. If you cease feeding the dog, it will then steal your food while you are not looking. It doesn't do this merely to feed itself in the short term, but as a violent method of thought-control, placing you in fear of having your food stolen. By such violence, it controls you and reinforces the patriarchy.

2. A dog prefers to use the restroom outside. If you do not let your dog outside to use the restroom, it will use the restroom on your couch, or on a favorite rug, or in your bed. Again, this is violent and coercive --- symptomatic of an underlying fascist and authoritarian mentality. Sometimes it will wake you up in the morning then, right in front of you, use the restroom on your collection of Dinesh D'Souza documentaries. What is this, if not violence?

3. A dog expects water. If you cease putting water in the dog water bowl, the dog will drink the water out of the toilet and then come lick you in the face, spreading the amoebas and protozoas of the toilet water on to your skin where they will then begin to spread, eventually claiming your entire body as their territory. This, obviously, is violence, or government by threat of violence and, as such, no dogs should be allowed once worldwide revolution achieves the true Anarcho-Socialist-State.

4. A dog expects to be groomed regularly. If you cease grooming the dog regularly, it will shed everywhere and stink. Again, by doing so, the dog is forcing you to obey its wishes by threat of hair everywhere (including your food and clothing) and by filling the room with a foul stench. Dogs must be abolished entirely if we are to achieve a society based upon mutual aid and cooperation, sans authority, hierarchy or threats of force.

5. A dog wishes to be walked. If you do not walk the dog, it will attack precious items you own, chew them and, at times, eat them. Oftentimes it chooses the items most precious to us like our first edition hardback copy of Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Lincoln", the remote control to our large plasma television, our monthly edition of the latest NRA magazine or our Green Camoflauge "Duck Commander Bible", written by Phil and Alan Robertson of the celebrated AMC show, "Ducky Dynasty."

6. Dogs are murderous. If you let a dog loose outside, and it is not so obese and air-conditioned that it cannot outrun a squirrel, should it get a hold of the squirrel it will snap its neck, slice its fur, disembowel it and slowly eat the entire squirrel in front of its crying squirrel husband and squirrel children. The same is true of champmonks, rabbits, wood lizards, beavers, seals and diminutive land-birds.

Points 1-6 demonstrate that in a true anarchist society, dogs should be disallowed from entering the perimeter through well-placed barb-wire fences. Sentinel towers will be placed every 50 feet equipped with automatic rifles. Every 300 feet, a sniper tower also will be in place. Should a dog breach both the sentinel and sniper towers, a command post will be placed evey 1,000 feet with an advanced relay-system of walkie-talkies, smoke-signals and specially tuned drums which will alert one of the two defensive units we have on duty at the time (either the Berkman Imperial Guard or the Anarchist Soldiers' Sorority). These will intercept the canine and dispose of it.

The burden of proof is on the Con to demonstrate why the existence of dogs is compatible with the iron will of the Anarcho-Socialist State in light of points 1-6.

(Note: I could bring up more points, but I want to keep this a good, clean debate.)


Thanks for the debate opportunity, if you have a dog, then I pity you both. I will respond to your points in order.

1.Why would any humane person not feed their dog? If you were starving you would steal food too. My dog never steals food, and he does no have access to food every minute of every day either, and is not fat.

2. I prefer to use the restroom outside, except when it is below zero, then I thank the inventor of the indoor toilet, of which my dog would also if there was an indoor toilet he could use, as he is short haired and gets cold, just like we do. As far as defecating anywhere in the house, he only would if he was neglected for 24 or more hours at least, which he has never been.

3. You don't expect water? If you were thirsty enough, you would be glad to have a toilet bowl to drink from certainly, and then you would lick the face of the provider of such luxury gladly, if you were thirsty enough.

4. What kind of irresponsible fool gets a long haired dog if they do not expect to deal with either stink and shedding or regular grooming? please.

5. A sedentary individual that does not wish to walk with their dog, should have never gotten one. I walk my dog 2-3 times per week, plus a couple a car rides, and he has never chewed anything but an old oven mitt that I got lasagna on the thumb of and dropped next to his bed, near the laundry pile. He just about crapped himself out of guilt when I picked it up and said, what is this? I have never beat him, ever.

6. I wish my Pitt Bull Retriever would kill the squirrels but he stops chasing when they leave the lawn. Someday he will get one I hope, as they eat the bird food and that is expensive bird turd fuel! LOL!

Anarchism will never exist because humans are like dogs and herd animals. We will always find a leader, or kill each other trying.
Debate Round No. 1


I want to thank Max Wallace for joining this important debate. May the best anarchist win!


1. I was using the example of food-thievery to illustrate the dogs' innate usage of force and violence to achieve what it wants. I do believe dogs should be fed, but I do not think it justifies violence on part of the dog to achieve its desires. Rather, a dog should make known its desire for food through open communication: whining, pawing at the air, sad looks, etc.

I do not think the Con has properly refuted the principle of coercion here. To say "you would steal food" and "my dog never steals food" area appeals to an assumed general consensus, as well as to one, isolated example. I submit to you that the vast majority of dogs would indeed steal food if given the chance. The Con's dog may be an exception to the rule.

2. Again, the Con's dog may be an especially well-behaved dog. And, yes, using the restroom outside is sometimes fun (though only number 1, never number 2). Nonetheless, I can also speak from personal experience that I have had dogs who routinely used the restroom in the house. Con's exceptional dog does not absolve the majority of dogs of their violent tendencies.

3. The Con says that if I was thirsty enough, I would both a) drink from the toilet and b) spread amoebas onto the face of whoever allowed me toilet access. Even if this were true, it would still not absolve dogs from their essential violent natures. Dogs cannot be anarcho-socialists until they set aside from the principle of coercion. My own personal failings do not absolve dogs from theirs. Again, the Con fails to argue effectively that dogs can be anarcho-socialists.

4. Some dogs are purchased with short hair, but then, later, the hair grows out long, unbeknownst to their owner. But, again, the Con fails to show why this is relevant to the dogs' inability to integrate into an anarcho-socialist state.

5. The Con's dog sounds like a good anarcho-socialist, actually, and I would be happy to have both the Con and his dog join the Great Anarcho-Socialist-society. Having said that, he has only shown that his own, particular dog can be an anarcho-socialist, and not that dogs, by and large, can be. I have given reasons from the nature of most dogs, but the Con refutes by an appeal to one dog. The particular does not dislodge the universal.

6. Noted.

In summation, the Con is arguing that because some humans would not make good anarcho-socialists, or because his dog would, that, therefore, the majority of dogs would make good anarcho-socialists. This is not sufficient reasons, I believe. Perhaps a more in depth analysis will arrive with the upcoming rounds.

Thank you.


Humans cannot even be good Anarcho-Socialists, so why burden the race of dogs with guilt for not having that ability either?

Humans are 2 legged dogs, crossed with 2 legged cows, over a population of billions.

A resolution to this conundrum will be very difficult to prove.

Good luck!

By the way, I will wipe my dirty hole after a number 2 in the woods quite happily with a clean leaf, and you?
Debate Round No. 2


The Con has now given us a profound argument:

Dogs cannot be anarcho-socialites, because people can't be.

Is this true?

Before democracy was attempted, there were men like the Con who said, "Democracy cannot work. We need kings and emperors."

Well my friend, we overthrew the kings and emperors and made democracies.

Now we have those who say, "Anarcho-socialism is impossible. We need some sort of centralized government to organize things."

I argue that anarcho-socialism will work because it was what we had for 100,000 years of hominid history. There were no kings, no lords, no bosses. Everyone was free to be who they were: to compose music out of beating on turtle shells, to write poetry with inarticulate grunts and howls, and to paint wonderful pictures with the blood of mammoths mixed with the blood of sparrows on cave walls. Then, some jerk got it in his head to be the king, to be the boss, and he convinced a bunch of other jerks that he was, and so began civilization.

Likely the inspiration for the first king or boss was a dog. A man saw how dogs grovel before people, shamelessly and ignorantly, and so he thought, "I want people to grovel before me, like a dang dirty dog!" Dogs are at the root of civilizational depravity. They are mangey, ferocious and smell beasts. They drool and slobber all over your DVDs, then they chew up your comic book collection, bite through the cords of your Nintendo WII-U, and go potty on your treadmill.

Seriously, Con, are you going to sit here and defend that behavior? How can you? How can you sit idly by while dogs do this day after day, holding all of back by threat of their iron paws?

I hold it in until I get back to town, or a gas station at least, by the way. I don't like using the restroom outside where a bear can attack and kill me.


A beer cannot attack and kill you, unless you leave it in the path of a cop. Go to sleep and bring this another day, like tomorrow or the next.

I will adopt your dog if need be, and if you have a cow, then they too.
Debate Round No. 3


I think it's safe to say at this point that dogs must be sent to an anarcho-socialist re-education camp (REC) before being allowed into the greater anarcho-socialist-society.

I propose the following measures:

If the dog is male, it must be castrated. A prosthetic can be put in to maintain balance and aesthetic integrity, but unless a dog is castrated it will continue to use coercion, violence and patriarchy to attain food, clothing and shelter.

The dog must be then placed in a leotard, and not allowed out of it except for bathing. Leotards, as a general rule, are able calm and pacify a dog to the extent that it will cease working against the greater good of society. I know when I wear a leotard, the last thing on my mind is upsetting societal equilibrium.

These can be purchased quite cost effectively here:

The dog must not be allowed near knives, axes, pencils or any other object which it can grasp and stab into the heart of an anarcho-socialist comrade. Ideally, all such items will be hung from the ceiling on strings, where the dog cannot reach them.

These are just some basic measures. The Anarchist Comittee Toward Excellence, Virtue, Integrity & Life (A.C.T.E.V.I.L.) will develop further counter-measures.

In regards to beer attacks, I remember reading in a reader's digest that most beers are attracted to the area by AM radio. These will also be banned by the Great Anarchist Society.

I will mail you my dog and my cow in 48 hours. The package will come UPS. I have cut air holes in both of their respective boxes and provided them with bottled water, kit-kat bars and an mp3 player each loaded with the lectures of Howard Zinn.


I await the package you promise. I will eat the cow eventually, and your dog will be a good friend in time.

Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
All animals are anarchists. All humans are gods. Right?
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
I'll get back to you on that.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Dogs are anarcho-socialists in the wild, and cows are anarcho-fideists.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Typical speciesist chauvinism. Dogs were around millions of years before humanity, and you say can't understand anarcho-socialism? Just what sort of government did the dog-hordes have before we people crawled up out of the ape pit, huh?
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Exactly what textbook told you that?
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
Dogs can't even comprehend anarcho-socialism.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
That is the nature of humanity, dogs and cows are immune to that. You are alright, just stressed out by your dog. I have been there, but after working hard with him, I have no better friend.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
yeah I am kind of a hypocrite :(
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Uh, dude, you are knocking dogs down while portraying yourself as one.

Just stating the obvious.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Me against Max Wallace is like five Demogorgons against a fruit bat. No contest. Absolute win for mightbenihilism --- a track record of EXCELLENCE!
No votes have been placed for this debate.