Economic Freedom ought to be valued over economic equality

I dropped them because I had already disproved your 1st contention by using deductive reasoning.Your first contention's claim is similar to arguing 1==2, when actually 1!=2. Let me walk you through it again.Economic equity was defined as all inhabitants are equal, and Socialism was defined as a government controlling all means of production. Now, the people in the government are also considered inhabitants. If the government controls all the means of production, that implies that they have a higher position than the rest of the inhabitants, which means that not all inhabitants are equal in Socialism. So based on the definitions, Economic equity and Socialism are not the same thing because one has equality among inhabitants,and the other has inequality among inhabitants. So when your contention claimed "Economic equity leads to Socialism", you're basically claiming: a system where all inhabitants are equal leads to a system where all inhabitants are not equal. You can immediately see the logical flaw in that thought, and thus you're contention is disproven."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."Your concept on the meaning of economics are severely flawed and is based on traditional thinking.SpiffyTexan regards success as only about "climbing the corporate ladder" (wealth and position) which is the only goal in a capitalistic system. That's a very narrow view of economics.What really is an economy?Today, the modern capitalistic system only measures an economy based on the amount of GDP produced (i.e. the value and number of transactions of products/services bought and sold) [1]However, GDP is not the only, nor is it the main parameter that determines a healthy economy - what about the health of the people, health of people's relationships with each other, or the health of the environment in which they live in? These are all critical factors that are significantly more important than just measuring GDP.An economy might have a very high GDP where people have a lot of material "success", but if everyone was fat, sick, and living in a polluted environment, it wouldn't truly be a healthy economy. A true economy is not based on GDP and monetary/material wealth, but the overall physical and social health of the people in the society. The root and foundation of an economy is it's people. People always come first and material things are secondary, because without it's people, there would not be an economy."It is health that is real wealth, and not pieces of gold and silver" - Mahatma Gandi [2]Additionally, here are some fundamental definitions of economics. [3][4][5][6]The root word for economics, which is Greek, is Okionomia which translates to "household management".Economics - the economic activity which goal is to achieve the highest level of sustainable well being for all it's citizens.Economy - thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumptionEconomical - avoiding waste or extravagance; thrifty"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."Many of the greatest scientists in history have actually created technology out of passion, curiousity, discovery, and servitude towards humanity. "An inventor is a man who looks upon the world and is not contented with things as they are. He wants to improve whatever he sees, he wants to benefit the world." - Alexander Graham Bell [7]l"All people should have free energy sources...Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need for coal, oil, or gas" - Nikola Tesla [8]"The desire that guides me in all I do is the desire to harness the forces of nature to the service of Mankind" - Nikola Tesla [9]Today even young people are learning to innovate because they are driven not by the pursuit of wealth or status, but by passion and making an beneficial impact to their community: Watch this short clip on what truly motivates us. "There has never been a society that had no social classes."That is false. Many indigenous societies in the past operated with no social classes and no money such as the Native American tribes who lived all across the North American Continent until they were colonized by western expansion in the 16th/17th centuries. [10] Today many indigenous societies still operate without classes and money. Everyone in the tribe is treated as part of a family and share all their resources amongst each other. [11]"SB: Socialism Strangles Economic Growth"From your perspective of economics, yes socialism does strangle economic growth, and that is actually a good thing.Perpetual economic growth (GDP) is overconsuming the world's resources without any regard to the physical limitations and condition of the environment and the planet. Socialistic countries such as Germany have proven to be more productive and innovative. Unlike the U.S., Germany has already taken huge leaps towards a green sustainable energy economy. Just as a fact, on May 11, 2014, nearly 75% of the Germany's energy was produced by renewable energy, mostly from Solar. Now that is what you call innovation. [12]"SA: Economic freedom leads to the most successful economic system: capitalismGiven what we know in 2014, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat. "Again SpiffyTexan refers to a "successful" economic system based on the accumulation of solely on wealth and status, which I had previously explained to be a narrow view of economics. Also he compares capitalsm is better than socialism is as controversial as Earth is round, not flat, which is a statement that doesn't prove anything and implies that you must be dumb to think otherwise.To conclude, my opponent has not really proven how Capitalism is better and hasn't givien much critical analysis. Additionally he tends to skew his ideas in his favor such as defining economic success to be only based on wealth and status. Thanks to my opponent for trying. I am an electrical and computer engineering student so I am used to logic as well. Good luck! Vote for Con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.mkgandhi.org...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[4] http://www.neweconomics.org...[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[6] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[7] http://izquotes.com...[8] https://decryptedmatrix.com...[9] http://www.teslauniverse.com...;[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[11] ;[12] http://thinkprogress.org...;