Economic Freedom ought to be valued over economic equality
It is because I agree with Nobel prize winner in economic science F.A. Hayek that I must affirm the resolution resolved: that In the realm of economics, freedom ought to be valued over equity. Before we jump right in I would like to clarify that the original wording of the resolution was "Economic Freedom ought to be valued over economic equality" I much preferred this wording and got it concreted in my mind before they changed it, that being said, I use the words equity and equality somewhat interchangeably.
For clarification purposes in round I will provide a few definitions before we begin
Economic equality refers to an economy in that all of the inhabitants are equally wealthy, and have the same status in the economy, because they have had the same opportunities, non discriminant on race, gender, skill, culture, or wealth condensation.
Economic freedom is the key to greater opportunity and an improved quality of life. It's the freedom to choose how to produce, sell, and use your own resources, while respecting others' rights to do the same.
After what homeschoolers would call an enormous amount of research, I have decided that what economic freedom best achieves is a healthy economy. So this will be my value, or what I'm striving to achieve. While my criterion, or my means of achieving my value is economic freedom.
A key element of the success of a system in promoting prosperity will be that in rewarding excellent output, it will be rewarding the hard work, courage, alertness, and commitment that makes for excellence. Now, since I have quite a bit to cover, let's move on to my 3 contentions.
Contention 1: True economic equity leads to socialism
An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.
This article was taken from economicshelp.org and clearly states that Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement. Today I will be promoting my value of a healthy economy by encouraging capitalism, not socialism.
C1, SA: Socialism is an impractical economic philosophy
To quote Austrian economic philosopher Ludwig Von Mises,
"People tend to consider socialism impractical because men lack the moral qualities demanded by a socialist society. It is feared that under socialism most men will not exhibit the same zeal in the performance of the duties and tasks assigned to them that they bring to their daily work in a social order based on private ownership of the means of production. In a capitalist society, every individual knows that the fruit of his labor is his own to enjoy, that his income increases or decreases according as the output of his labor is greater or smaller. In a socialist society, every individual will think that less depends on the efficiency of his own labor, since a fixed portion of the total output is due him in any case and the amount of the latter cannot be appreciably diminished by the loss resulting from the laziness of any one man. If, as is to be feared, such a conviction should become general, the productivity of labor in a socialist community would drop considerably."
SB: Socialism leads to economic desparity
There has never been a society that had no social classes. An especially important point since we have numerous recent examples of societies that tried to create a classless society and failed miserably. Many people have noted that the rich-poor wealth gap in the Soviet Union and communist China is actually larger since socialism and communism replaced the previous systems.
Similar to friends, exercise, and education; people have varying relationships with Money. Some people collect money, some people love to make money, some people love to spend money, and some people are afraid of it. Treating everyone the same causes huge problems. Socialism treats the people as a whole, and gives power to the government, so in reality, those who govern would be the upper class, and the governed would make up a consistant lower class, with no class in between. This is what happens when absolute power is given to the government. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
SC: over regulation in such Markets stifle innovation, creating the cycle of poverty
Treating everyone equally takes the incentive to improve out of life. People in free societies can make decisions for themselves and create new products and basically improve their position in society by innovation and dedication. This is impossible in a socialist society.
C2: Economic freedom ecourages innovation
This was taken from Capitalism magazine Jaana Wilson, Fall of 2012.
"Economists understand that innovation drives economic growth. Big innovations based on harnessing steam power, discovering electricity, the computer revolution all have spurred economic growth. But what drives innovation? That is what the "peak growth" economists are either mute or mistaken about"some blame, incredulously, neo-liberal policies of deterring innovation and economic growth. Mr. Corcoran, however, correctly identifies that we need freedom to boost innovation and economic growth. It is competition in free markets that pushes companies to outperform each other in coming up with new, better, less expensive products and services, and more efficient processes and technologies for producing them. "
SA: Economic freedom is an incentive for success
The primary variable in the success of a system is the promise of reward for hard work and dedication, this has been proven in my previous statements, and this is the only system that aknowledges human nature.
SB: Consumers' voices are heard.
This makes their decisions determine what products or services are in demand.
C3: Economic equity leads to socialism, which takes away from individuality.
In order to achieve the goal of "Equal Results", you can't acknowledge the inherent uniqueness in each of us. as -- Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowland, the authors of Socialism, the Imortance of philosophy stated:
"Socialism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. ... Socialism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group." .
Disadvantages of socialism include slow economic growth, less entrepreneurial opportunity and competition, and a potential lack of motivation by individuals due to lesser rewards.
SA: Economic freedom leads to the most successful economic system: capitalism
Given 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. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while capitalism robs you of that opportunity. If you would rather live off the dole than to work or alternately, prefer to make money off "who you know" instead of "how good a service you provide," again socialism works better for you.
It's just as Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Perhaps the strongest argument working in favor of capitalism is that there is no alternative politico-economic system which has proved itself to work in our modern age. Almost every attempted implementation of socio-communism has failed (for example, look at China " they abandoned total communism long ago and are slowly creeping towards capitalism) and any central government risks large amounts of corruption. What"s more is that if, for example, America became socialist and imposed many strong measures on corporations to regulate their behavior, the largest companies (Trans-National Corporations) would most likely move their industry elsewhere, and potential entrepreneurs would be scared to invest in capital, irreparably damaging America"s economy. So as you can see, changing the economic system isn"t even an option.
SB: Socialism strangles economic growth:
This is done by by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can't produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That's exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it's killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.
In conclusion, true economic equity promotes socialism, and socialism promotes a stagnant economy. While economic freedom promotes capitalism, and capitalism promotes an economy of innovation, and constant improvement. And it is for all of these reasons that I would strongly urge a vote for the affirmative.
I accept your debate. Goodluck.
SpiffyTexan’s 1st contention: “true economic equity leads to socialism.”
I will disprove that economic equity leads to socialism. Given SpiffyTexan’s definition of economic equity, if all of the inhabitants are equal and have the same status in the economy, then how can it lead to having a government that controls all the means of production, because everyone is equal?
Since socialism requires a government, it implies that a government (comprised of a group of people) has a higher status than the rest of the population in order to control all means of production, which means that not everyone is equal and has the same status. Thus by definition, economic equity logically cannot lead to socialism.
SpiffyTexan’s 3rd Contention: “Economic equity leads to socialism, which takes away from individuality”
Since the first half of his 3rd contention is the same as the 1st contention “Economic equity leads to socialism”, which I had previously disproven to be logically false, thus the 3rd contention is also false.
SpiffyTexan’s 2nd contention: ”Economic freedom ecourages innovation”
Innovation: “a new idea, device, or process” - Wikipedia 
"SA: Economic freedom is an incentive for success"
Success is a very subjective term which varies among different people; it doesn't always depend on attaining wealth (material rewards) or social status. For some people success could mean: finishing their homework, reading a book, cleaning their house, losing weight, eating healthier, helping the environment, learning computer programming, making new friends, or solving a problem, etc.
"The primary variable in the success of a system is the promise of reward for hard work and dedication"
Today the reason you and I enjoy the convenience of having electricity, computers, and cellphones, is not because you or I worked hard, but because some person or scientist had previously already done the hard work of studying, experimenting, testing, and building those technologies.
We didn't have to reinvent the transistor, scientists did a long time ago, yet we reap the benefits of their hard work everyday when we use our electronic devices. Most of us were born with these technologies and just take them for granted. 
"SB: Consumers' voices are heard."
Lets look at a real world example. In the past recent years there has been a growing amount of people around the world rallying against the company Monsanto which produces genetically modified crop seeds. Despite the countless of global protests against them every year, Monsanto still continues to produce and spread their seeds. So are the consumer’s voices heard? No, they’re ignored.
(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!
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) 
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 
Additionally, here are some fundamental definitions of economics. 
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.
"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 
"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 
"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 
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: https://www.youtube.com...
Watch this short clip on what truly motivates us. https://www.youtube.com...
"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.  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. 
"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. 
"SA: Economic freedom leads to the most successful economic system: capitalism
Given 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.
"There has never been a society that had no social classes."
The societies that he was talking about have made no significant societal advances, so this alone is an argument against economic equity.
He goes on to state that socialism strangling economic growth is a good thing, because the earth only has so many resources, then he says that "socialistic" countries like Germany have proven to be more productive and innovative. Germany is actually a capitalist country. The Five Most Capitalist Countries in the World -
So my opponent's argument that socialist countries like Germany are more productive and innovative is false, as he gave reference to Germany's production, then assumed that Germany was a socialist country, when it is actually one of the 5 most capitalist countries in the world.
He made reference to how I said that capitalism vs socialism should be as controversial as Earth is round, not flat.
I apologize for not making proper reference to the author in my constructive, this was taken from townhall.com
In his conclusion he merely stated that I had not proven how capitalism is better than socialism and said nothing more of the matter. I have given many reasons why capitalism is better than socialism, for instance: C1 sa, C1 sb, C1 sc, C2, C2 sb, C3, C3 sb. If those aren't enough reasons why capitalism is better than socialism I am sorry.
Thanks to my opponent for trying. I am a Lincoln-Douglas debater so I am used to logic as well. Good Luck! Vote fro Pro.
(I could have said for pro, but fro pro is so much more fun.)
I would like to thank again SpiffyTexan for agreeing to make the debate to 3 rounds.
"Germany is actually a capitalist country."
Of course, no country today is truly Socialist; The entire world today is practically a capitalist economy since every country uses some form of capitalism, some more than others, and yes Germany's economy does rely heavily on Capitalism.
I never described Germany as a pure "Socialist" country. I said they were a "Socialistic" country. There's a difference, in which I meant that they tend to embrace more socialist values relative to other capitalistic countries.
His reference from the Townhall website was completely biased towards his position. Additionally his original statement, "Given 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." was not even a credible argument to begin with.
"I have given many reasons why capitalism is better than socialism, for instance: C1 sa, C1 sb, C1 sc, C2, C2 sb, C3, C3 sb"
In C1 sa, your entire argument was one huge quote from Ludwig Von Mises, which is also completely biased towards your position.
My opponent argues that treating everyone equally takes away the incentive of improving out of life.
This implies that having a difference in wealth and status among people is what motivates people to work hard and do something with their life. If that's true, then why do we see so many open source softwares/websites such as Linux or Wikipedia where everybody has free equal access to them, and yet many people devote their spare time to improve them without gaining any "rewards".
My opponent also argues that competition is what encourages innovation. I have disproven this by giving references to past scientists who's efforts were not motivated by competition, but by contribution to improving humanity.
Also I had previously shared a link that shows an example of how young kids today around the world are innovating through passion and contribution to their community, and not by competition nor the pursuit of wealth and position. Again here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com...
To summarize, throughout the debate my opponent regarded success and being successful as to only attaining monetary/material wealth and status. I countered this by explaining that success was subjective and doesn't always translate to wealth and social status.
Also I had explained that the overall physical and social health of citizens, and the health of the environment in which they live in all have more significance in contributing to a truly healthy and successful economy.
People are what ultimately define an economy, not its monetary/material wealth. Without people, an economy wouldn't exist to begin with.
Because of the reasons I stated above, my opponent has not really proved why economic freedom ought to be valued over economic equality. In closing, I want to thank SpiffyTexan for having me in this debate. I really enjoyed it.
Also, I wish you best of luck in your future Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Vote for CON! :)