Debate Info

Debate Score:78
Total Votes:85
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

addltd(5141) pic


This is the Fifty-Second in an ongoing series of spotlight debates. The purpose of the debate is to "roast" the user (and when I say "roast", I mean in a nice way). Please share all the good, humorous, and otherwise positive aspects about this important user of our community. Don't worry, I will be creating one of these every few days so your name may show up next!


 Fifty-First in the series - LizziexLaura -

Fifty-Third in the series - Bradf0rd -

Add New Argument

I hate his ideology and find most of his views to be idiotic, however, I don't hate him nor do I believe he is idiotic. I think Kozlov is intelligent, but needs to understand that alot of his policies (such as the war on drugs and minimum wage) have many unintended consequences.

No other member is higher than his absolute belief in government violence reserved in Statism.

kozlov(1755) Disputed
2 points

Well, thanks for being nice. And maybe my economic views are pretty bad, but they're not as bad as capitalism. Capitalism has been mathematically proven to fail. The is because the overall goal of capitalists is to increase surplus value. There are a few ways they can do this: like increase hours and keeps the pay the same etc. However, they have lost the length of the work day battle, so they take advantage of a mathematical law. The people you employ, the more surplus value the capitalist can get. So they hire many people. This can be proven by using the formula (value+surplus value)/(number of workers)(hours worked). The result of this is intensity of labor. You'll notice that if you plug in numbers form a company, you'll get intensity of labor; however, if you just increase the number of workers, you'll notice the intensity of labor (surplus value) increases. In essence, businesses must grow to become more profitably. You would agree with this. But as businesses employ more people, they need to acquire more means of production. When more businesses do this, price of these things becomes higher and higher. The price of labor also gets higher (it's just supply and demand economics). When the price gets higher the capitalists cannot afford to expand and thus, grow. This primes the scene for a crisis.

3 points

You complete left out the element of innovation and technological advancement. The price of labor continues to go up and up until someone an innovation/technological advancement is made. Ex: Reaver Industries has been in the agriculture business for awhile and the cost of labor has been rising. Each worker plows the fields with a ho, plants the seeds by hand and harvests the crops by hand. Then, Reaver Industries develops new farming technology, such as the drill planter, tractor and plow that can be attached to the tractor. Suddenly, instead of the company needing 100 manual laborers they only need 10 workers to operate the machinery.

Understand now?

PS: Noam Chomsky saying Capitalism is bad then rambling on about how evil private enterprise is because it doesn't run at a loss isn't "mathematically" proving that Capitalism fails.

Julius(201) Disputed
1 point

Oh the irony in this one post is so rich...Alas, irony is often lost.

He is awesome. I learned that we both like collecting flags. Which is incredibly cool. I have a high amount of respect for him. I haven't really debated against him before but if the debate involves Russia then he knows everything. He is pretty awesome.

addltd(5141) Clarified
1 point

What kind of flags? Do you want a CreateDebate Flag?

Oh like countries and stuff. Like the american flag or the mexican flag but yes I would love a huge create debate flag. That would be soooo awesome.

He's a good comrade ;)

2 points

Amazing guy, fairly smart. We butt heads(more than most realize). He's a trollish person once you get to know him, and he's a little too... capitalist (if any of you think I'm serious with that, find out more about Kozlov.) for my liking, other than that, smart and cool guy, glad to know him.

2 points

He's a good debater I haven't really spoke to him properly but he seems a nice guy with rational and smart arguments.

2 points

He seems intelligent enough, we don't butt head all that much because I avoid politics and anything of the sort, and I suspect that is where he goes. If I am not mistaken he is canadian right? Or was that someone else? If so, lucky bastard, I want to visit Canada :P.

He's cool.

I can't recall any tough headbutts we've had, but I remember an interesting conversation we had on one of his debates asking if Canada should adopt the high powered speed rail.

Very intelligent. It's kind of Clich├ęd to say but it's true of most debaters on here.

1 point

I have no spoken to him in a while. He seems cool I guess. .

1 point

Haven't really seen his debates nor debated with him. So I did what I normally do here and look at their most recent arguments and make a general opinion.

I generally seem to disagree with his views, but I like the solid determination he demonstrates and the ability to withstand heated debates.

I think we would get along personally, but probably not as debate buddies. Who knows though. :)

1 point

He is a very smart debater always backs up everything, and has a great sense of humor... I think that's who I'm thinking of

I like the colour scheme on his picture.

Akulakhan(2985) Clarified
1 point

Gonna unblock me?

1 point

How does someone who can bypass bans not know how to bypass blocks?

1 point

yeah! CANADA WHOOOOOOOO! Love this guys's picture. Don't know him personally.