Economic Freedom ought to be valued over economic equality

My opponent jumped back and forth between my contentions and dropped my c1sa, c1sb, c1sc, c3 sa, sb and sc. So by the rules of debate, silence is concession and my opponent agrees with all of these points. In his response to my 1st contention, he stated that socialism would not be economic equity because the government would have control over the people. This is true in any government system, so the only way for true economic equity to be upheld is to tear down true government. If my opponent is wanting to support true economic equality by his standards, he must give appropriate reason to tear down the government system. So socialism is the next step down from true economic equity, or as I like to call it, anarchy. His response to my 3rd contention was that since he "disproved" that economic equality leads to socialism, but unless he can prove that the government should be torn down to uphold equality, then he must be arguing for equality among the masses, or socialism. Hence, my 3rd contention still stands, and the highest level of equality within a government system is socialism, which takes away from individuality. His response to my 2nd contention was that we would be opposing innovation by not wanting true economic equity because by definition, equality is a new idea or process. That is true, but that is one piece of innovation that would stifle a great deal more innovation in the future. His response to my sa was that success is a very subjective term. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ECONOMICS, so we are not discussing making new friends or losing weight, we are talking about climbing the corporate ladder, the desire to have a comfortable living, the competitive spirit. Now, finishing your homework or learning computer science could be related to this because this increases your ability to succeed. Success is the end goal, homework and computer science are means of achieving success. His response to my case snippet about rewarding hard work and dedication was that other people create the technology, so we don't have to worry about it. Do you think the inventors would have tried to create and produce the technology if the world would treat them the same way as the couch potato and receive the same amount of income? NO! They strove to create these things because they wanted to have a higher place in society. When we treat everyone equally, we are not making the under achievers come up as much as we are pushing the over achievers down. His response to my subpiont b basically gave one example of where one company ignored a group of people because they could make more money otherwise. My sb was referring to people's voices being heard in what was in demand, there are plenty of producers of non gmo corn because of these people who attempt to make their voices heard. His example was of people trying to get a company to stop doing something, in return, another company heard their voices and saw what was in demand and gave it to them. (On a side note, gmo's have made a huge impact on hunger by increasing crop production and reducing prices, not saying they're good for you, but hey, food with gmos is better than no food at all. ) Kudos to my opponent for quoting so many sources. I compete in Lincoln Douglas debate, so I'm used to using logic and what I happen to remember from research. In light of all of these things, I strongly urge you to vote for the affirmative. Good luck!