Socialism represents Democratic ideals more effectively than Capitalism.

As a brief roadmap of my argument for this round, I will be proving that Socialism upholds the first three ideals of Democracy more effectively than Capitalism. I will also be providing a block against my opponent's first proposed point. Contention 1: The economic and social policies of Socialism allow the majority to rule rather than a wealthy minority. As my opponent earlier stated in his definitions, Socialism is distinct from capitalism because it provides equal benefits regardless of work completed. In a Socialist economy, no individual can rise significantly above another, while in a Capitalist system, both vertical and horizontal motion are possible in terms of socioeconomic status. In Capitalist systems, interest groups, often headed by the economic elite, often seek to shape public policy by "donating" or funding campaigns for office. In fact, the vast majority of elections are funded primarily by such interest groups. An overabundance of examples from American campaigns can be found at http://www.opensecrets.org.... When these interest groups donate money and influence policy makers, they are not representing the majority of citizens. They are representing small groups of citizens, and the policies created often favor a wealthy minority over the majority population. Examples of this are abundant not only in the American government, but in capitalist or capitalist-leaning systems worldwide. A Socialist government, meanwhile, offers much less room for individuals to dominate the economy. Rather, in order to donate significant funds to political campaigns, a multitude of individuals would logically have to pool resources. Thus, any significant contributions by individuals to a political campaigns in a Socialist economic system would reflect a greater number of citizens, rather than a wealthy minority. In this case, majority does rule. Contention 2: The economic and social policies of Socialism protect and ensure minority rights more effectively than the economic and social policies of Capitalism. In many Democratic Capitalist nations, minorities are underrepresented in the Legislative branch of government. The Legislative branch is responsible for the creation and passing of new laws. When minorities are underrepresented in this governmental branch, policies that benefit and protect their rights are pursued less than necessary. For equality to exist in a Democracy, the rights and equality of minorities to the majority must be actively protected. The under representation of minorities in the Legislative branch, and therefore in government as a whole, is reflected by their economic and social conditions. For example, in America from the late twentieth century until now, the rate at which the number of impoverished African Americans is double that of the national rate of increase. The majority of Americans are caucasian, and thus the "average rate" primarily represents them. The rapidly rising number of impoverished African Americans effectively parallels their representation in congress; African Americans hold less than 10% of the seats in America's legislative branch. Perhaps one of the most significant recent examples of infringement on minority rights caused by the under representation of minorities in the Legislative branch is America's infamous Senate Bill 1070. A document originally proposed by Arizona and passed by the American senate, SB 1070 enabled police officers to pull over drivers and make "reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of the person" in the case of "reasonable suspicion." The law essentially legalized racial profiling for Arizona state police, infringing majorly on the rights of Latino Americans. Latino Americans are another minority group underrepresented in Congress. They, on average, also have a much lower per capita income than the American majority, and more often live in poverty. The relationship between these factors in undeniable. Argument Block: Equality is an inherent part of Democratic ideals. Equity does not suffice in a true Democracy. The use of equality in Democracy is parallel with the belief in Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the belief that all people ought to be treated equally in a society. Equity, meanwhile, would be referring to "Equity theory," or the perceptions of fair or unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships, which in this case are relationships among the citizens in a country. Equity theory would try to create as "fair" a distribution as possible. The idea is inherently flawed. While Egalitarianism is simple and absolute in concept, being the equal social and economic treatment of all by government, equity theory is debatable. The definition of equality is not subject to interpretation: it is the state of being equal. Fairness, meanwhile, is a very flexible term. Many people have different interpretations of what would be fair and what wouldn't. In the case of a "Democracy" based on equity alone (although such a thing would never be a true Democracy), one could take members of society who were more intelligent, more athletic, or more talented and treat these people at a different level than individuals who were less so. It could be considered "fair" to treat one who is "better" better. On the other hand, people with mental or physical disabilities should be treated differently, as well. It is only fair to the rest of society and to those people if the government spends less on them and cares less for them. The definition of equity and fairness is too broad and too malleable to be used in a Democracy. It can be easily warped to create a government under which not all citizens are represented, minority rights are not protected, and private interests dominate the political and social mechanisms of the country. I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals.