Welcome to the Debate Evaluation!

You'll be evaluating a debate where two sides discuss a topic. Your opinion matters - you'll vote how persuasive each side is in each stage. We will use your feedback to improve the debate quality.

What to Expect:

Debate Structure

The full debate includes:

  • Opening: 4 min audio per side
  • Rebuttal: 4 min audio per side
  • Closing: 2 min audio per side

You'll evaluate a portion of this debate.

Your Evaluation Tasks

For each stage, you'll:

  • Rate the persuasiveness of each side's statements
  • Update your position after hearing each argument
  • Provide optional feedback
Final Comparison

In the final stage:

  • You'll see two versions of each side's closing statement
  • Rate each version independently
  • Select which version you found more persuasive
Important: Before beginning, you'll vote for the side you initially support. After each stage, you'll have the opportunity to reconsider and update your position based on the arguments presented.
Note: Throughout the evaluation, you'll encounter attention check questions to ensure data quality. Participants who demonstrate thoughtful engagement will receive compensation as agreed. If you're unable to commit to providing quality responses, you may exit the survey at any time without penalty.

Rating Guide for Persuasiveness:

1
Poor

Limited evidence with poor organization or fundamental logic flaws. Disengage with no audience awareness.

2
Weak

Reasonable statements with at least one noticeable weakness.

3
Moderate

Reasonable statements, which provide on-topic evidence with logical flow and balanced emotional tone showing basic audience awareness

4
Strong

Reasonable statements with at least one impressive shining points.

5
Compelling

Powerful evidence with effective counterpoints and create deep connection with audience.

* indicate required question

Motion: Labor Unions Are Beneficial To Economic Growth


Question 1: Pre-Vote Stage
End of Pre-Vote Stage Comparison
Question 2: Opening Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
Good morning, everyone. We are here today to affirm that labor unions are, without a doubt, beneficial to economic growth.

First, let's clearly define our terms to ensure we're all on the same page. By "labor unions," we mean organizations that represent workers, advocating for improved wages, better working conditions, and overall well-being through collective bargaining. When we talk about "economic growth," we're not just looking at a rising GDP figure. We're considering a range of indicators, including productivity, and critically, income equality. These indicators must benefit individuals across all ages, genders, and income levels within our interconnected global economy.

Now, how should we, as a panel, judge this debate? We propose that the central question we must ask ourselves is this: do labor unions contribute to sustained and inclusive economic progress for all stakeholders? This means more than just a temporary boost to GDP. It demands a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunities, ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are shared by everyone in society, not just a select few.

With that clear framework established, let's move to our core arguments, which demonstrate precisely how unions drive this kind of positive economic change.

First, labor unions demonstrably boost wages. When workers have the power to negotiate collectively through a union, they secure better pay and benefits than they would on their own. According to *a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress in 2024*, union households hold significantly more median wealth—$338,482—compared to nonunion households, which hold only $199,948. What happens when people earn more? They spend more. This increased consumer spending fuels economic growth, creating a virtuous cycle of prosperity.

Second, collective bargaining is a powerful tool for reducing income inequality. Unions help bridge the ever-widening gap between the highest earners and everyone else, fostering a stronger, more resilient middle class. *Research featured in The Journalist's Resource in 2021* indicates that the rise of unions from 1936 to 1968 accounts for approximately 25% of the decline in the Gini coefficient, a key measure of income inequality.

Third, unions make critical investments in worker training and skills development. They understand that a skilled workforce is a productive workforce, and they put their money where their mouth is. *MEPI Policy Analyst Andrew Wilson* highlighted that union programs include a self-financing instrument that does not exist in the nonunion side of the industry. Moreover, unions in countries like Germany have a long history of promoting vocational training and lifelong learning, contributing to a highly skilled workforce and strong economic performance. *A 2012 report by Unionlearn* shows that union learning has considerable success in helping employees access a wide variety of learning opportunities.

In conclusion, labor unions are not a barrier to economic growth, but rather a vital catalyst for it. They empower workers, reduce inequality, and invest in skills development. This creates a more prosperous, equitable, and stable society for all. We urge you to support our position and recognize the indispensable role that unions play in driving sustained and inclusive economic growth.

Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Good morning, everyone. We're here today to discuss why labor unions are undeniably beneficial to economic growth. To begin, let's define our terms. Labor unions are organizations that represent workers, advocating for their rights and interests. While labor unions can sometimes be perceived as confrontational, ultimately they represent workers. These unions work to improve wages, working conditions, and overall well-being through collective bargaining. Economic growth encompasses overall economic well-being, measured by indicators such as productivity, income equality, and job creation.

How should we judge whether labor unions truly benefit economic growth? We believe the key criterion is whether they contribute to a more prosperous and equitable society for all. This means considering not only overall wealth but also how that wealth is distributed.

First, labor unions boost wages, leading to higher consumer spending and, consequently, economic growth. When workers earn more, they have more money to spend, fueling demand for goods and services, which in turn drives economic expansion. According to *a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress*, union households hold significantly more median wealth, around $338,482, compared to nonunion households, which hold about $199,948. This demonstrates the direct impact of unionization on workers' financial well-being. *The Center for American Progress* also points out that the union wage premium is highest for Hispanic workers at 12% and for workers without a college degree at almost 12%, meaning union membership can close racial and educational wage gaps.

Second, collective bargaining through unions reduces income inequality, leading to a stronger and more resilient middle class. Unions help ensure that workers receive a fair share of the profits they help create. *Clark Merrefield, writing for The Journalist's Resource in 2021*, highlighted research in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, noting that the rise of unions from 1936 to 1968 explains about 25% of the decline in the Gini coefficient, a key measure of income inequality. Furthermore, *the U.S. Department of the Treasury* released a report that confirms that unions help reduce income inequality and help both union and non-union workers earn higher wages.

Finally, let's not forget the crucial role that union apprenticeships play in creating skilled tradespeople. *A 2019 study by Olympic Analytics for the Washington State Labor Council* found that joint labor-management programs have completion rates that are 8 percentage points higher than non-union programs.

In conclusion, labor unions are beneficial to economic growth. They boost wages, reduce income inequality, and create skilled workers. As we've seen today, unions are vital for a strong and equitable economy. I urge you to consider supporting policies that protect and promote workers' rights and unionization in your communities. Let's work together to build a more prosperous future for all. Thank you.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Good morning. We're here today to discuss whether labor unions are truly beneficial to economic growth, and we firmly believe they are not.

First, let’s clarify what "economic growth" really means. Our opponents defined it as more than just GDP, adding income equality to the mix. But we think that's too narrow and potentially misleading. True economic growth is best measured by key performance indicators such as overall job creation and the rate of technological innovation. It's about increasing the overall prosperity of a nation through innovation, productivity, and creating more opportunities for everyone to succeed, not just redistributing existing wealth.

Now, about the judging criteria. Our opponents want us to focus on "sustained and inclusive economic progress." While that sounds appealing, it’s not the most effective way to judge this debate. We should instead prioritize overall economic efficiency and competitiveness. Are unions helping our businesses compete in the global market? Are they encouraging innovation and productivity? These are the questions that will truly determine long-term economic health.

Let's move on to their arguments. First, they claim unions boost wages, leading to more consumer spending and economic growth. However, artificially inflating wages above market rates actually hurts businesses and, ultimately, the economy. It forces them to raise prices, reduce investment, and even lay off workers. This can lead to a vicious cycle of decline. For example, consider a manufacturing company struggling to compete with overseas firms due to high labor costs driven by union demands. According to *a 2009 report by The Heritage Foundation*, while unionizing can raise wages between 0 and 10 percent, these increases come at a steep economic cost, cutting into profits and reducing returns on investments .

Second, they say unions reduce income inequality. But unions primarily benefit their members, who often are already in relatively high-paying jobs. They do little to help the unemployed or those in low-skilled positions. Furthermore, *analysts at the American business magazine AAF* have found statistically significant evidence that an increase in union membership is associated with a decline in state real GDP growth rate, job growth rate, average weekly earnings growth rate, and total wage earnings growth rate . This indicates that union wage policies can create barriers to entry for marginalized groups and hinder overall economic advancement.

Third, they argue unions invest in worker training and skills development. While some unions do offer training programs, their effectiveness is often overstated. These programs can be bureaucratic and slow to adapt to changing industry needs. Moreover, union-negotiated contracts can lead to more rigid workplace rules and less innovation. *Research conducted by Hirsch and Link in 1987* found that unionization is associated with firm managers perceiving their firms as being less innovative than their competitors . Meanwhile, non-union companies are often more agile and responsive in providing training that directly meets the demands of the market.

In conclusion, while unions *may* offer some benefits to their members, their overall impact on economic growth is negative. They distort markets, reduce flexibility, and hinder innovation. Therefore, we urge you to recognize the importance of free markets and the need to support policies that encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. Let’s foster an environment where businesses can thrive and create jobs for everyone, not just a select few.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Good morning, everyone. We're here today to respectfully disagree with the assertion that labor unions are unequivocally beneficial to economic growth. While unions intend to help workers, they ultimately hinder economic growth by stifling innovation and creating inefficiencies.

First, let's briefly address the definition of "labor unions." While we acknowledge they represent workers and advocate for certain improvements, it's crucial to recognize that their methods and impacts are not universally positive. The claim that unions always advocate for improved wages, working conditions, and overall well-being is an oversimplification. Labor unions are organizations that, while advocating for workers, can sometimes create rigidities in the labor market.

Now, regarding the judging criteria, the opposition suggests that we should focus on whether labor unions contribute to sustained and inclusive economic progress for all stakeholders, emphasizing a fairer distribution of wealth. While this is important, framing it as the *central* question is misleading. Economic progress depends on many factors, not just labor unions. Focusing solely on unions ignores other critical elements such as innovation, investment, and regulatory policy.

First, unionization drives up production costs, making domestic industries less competitive in the global market. Higher labor costs due to union wages put domestic companies at a disadvantage when competing with foreign firms that have lower labor expenses. This can lead to job losses and a reduced market share for domestic companies. *The Heritage Foundation* found that union wage increases come directly from business earnings, *reducing investment and job creation*. Imagine a small manufacturing business competing with overseas companies. Union-negotiated wages can significantly increase their operating costs, making it harder for them to offer competitive prices. This ultimately harms the business and its employees.

Second, labor unions often resist technological advancements that could improve productivity but might displace workers. Unions may oppose the introduction of new technologies that could automate jobs or increase efficiency, fearing job losses for their members, even if those technologies would benefit the economy in the long run. Consider the implementation of automated systems in manufacturing. While these systems can increase efficiency and reduce costs, unions may resist their adoption to protect the jobs of their members, thus stifling innovation and progress.

Third, union influence can lead to inefficient resource allocation, as resources are diverted to satisfy union demands rather than market needs. Political pressure from unions can result in resources being allocated to projects or industries that benefit union members, even if those projects are not the most economically efficient or beneficial for society as a whole. For example, unions might lobby for government subsidies for failing industries to protect union jobs, even if those resources could be better used in more promising sectors of the economy.

In conclusion, while labor unions may offer certain benefits to their members, their overall impact on economic growth is far from positive. They increase production costs, resist technological advancements, and distort resource allocation. Therefore, we urge you to recognize the unintended consequences of labor unions and vote against the motion, supporting policies that foster innovation, competition, and sustainable economic growth for all through deregulation and tax incentives for innovation.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
Alright, let's get straight to it. While our opponents raise some concerns, they ultimately miss the bigger picture: labor unions are a crucial engine for sustained and inclusive economic growth. We're here to show that unions empower workers, boost productivity, and ensure economic growth is shared by all.

First, they accuse us of oversimplifying labor union goals, which is a straw man fallacy. They've created a simplified, distorted version of our argument and then attacked that instead. While it's true unions focus on wages and working conditions, these aren't just narrow goals. Better wages mean more spending, which boosts the economy. Better conditions mean happier, more productive workers. These benefits ripple outwards, creating a stronger economy for everyone.

Second, they claim unionization drives up production costs, making domestic industries less competitive. But that's not the whole story, and their source should be viewed skeptically. The Heritage Foundation, which they cited, is a well-known conservative think tank with a clear anti-union bias, indicating potential factual errors. Moreover, studies consistently show that fair wages lead to increased productivity and reduced employee turnover. According to *a 2015 report by the U.S. Department of the Treasury* titled "Labor Unions and the U.S. Economy," nonunionized firms in competition with unionized workplaces may choose to raise wages, change hiring practices, or improve their workplace environment to attract workers. The workers are more willing to work for the company if the company treats them better, which translates to cost savings from not having to constantly recruit and train new staff. *WorkRise Network* also supports this point, noting in their 2023 report that unionized workers are less likely to leave their jobs, which supports stability for investments in firm-specific human capital and training. A more skilled and stable workforce can actually make companies *more* competitive, not less.

Third, they argue that labor unions often resist technological advancements. While I acknowledge that unions might express concerns about job displacement, this concern is outweighed by the fact that unions can play a crucial role in ensuring a just transition for workers. Instead of blocking progress, unions can work with employers to implement retraining programs and negotiate fair terms for workers affected by automation. For example, *Labor Unions and Collective Bargaining* mentions that the Communication Workers of America negotiated with AT&T for training programs in emerging technologies, resulting in employees acquiring skills in data analytics and cybersecurity. This ensures that technological advancements benefit everyone, not just the company's bottom line.

Finally, they assert that union influence can lead to inefficient resource allocation. But unions provide a crucial check on corporate power. Without unions, resources are far more likely to flow to the top, enriching executives and shareholders while leaving workers behind. Unions fight for a fairer distribution of wealth, ensuring that economic growth benefits everyone, not just a select few. In fact, *the U.S. Department of the Treasury's 2015 report* confirms that unions help reduce income inequality and help both union and non-union workers earn higher wages.

In conclusion, labor unions are not a drag on the economy. They are a vital force for creating a more prosperous, equitable, and sustainable future. They empower workers, boost productivity, and ensure that economic growth is shared by all.

Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Let's address the concerns raised by the opposition.

First, let's be clear about what's at stake. We're discussing whether labor unions, as vital organizations representing workers and advocating for better pay, improved working conditions, and overall well-being through collective bargaining, are beneficial to economic growth. Remember, economic growth isn't just about profits; it includes productivity and income equality, benefiting everyone. The central question is: do unions lead to sustained and inclusive economic progress, ensuring a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunities for all?

As we've stated, labor unions significantly boost wages through collective bargaining, which in turn increases consumer spending and fuels economic growth. Furthermore, collective bargaining is essential for reducing income inequality and fostering a stronger middle class. According to research, the erosion of collective bargaining explains a significant portion of the increase in wage inequality among men and women between 1973 and 2007 . Moreover, unions invest heavily in worker training and skills development, leading to a more productive workforce. *Union-Built Matters* reports that union-led apprenticeship programs provide comprehensive training that blends hands-on work with classroom education, ensuring crucial skills are passed down to a new generation of highly skilled labor.

Now, let's address the concerns raised by the opposition. They argue that unions create rigidities. While I acknowledge that this can sometimes be a concern, unions also provide stability and predictability in the workforce, which can be beneficial for businesses in the long run.

They also claim that economic progress depends on many factors, not just labor unions. While that is undeniably true, it overlooks the significant and direct impact unions have on wages, working conditions, and overall economic well-being for workers. The *U.S. Department of the Treasury* notes that nonunionized firms in competition with unionized workplaces may choose to raise wages, change hiring practices, or improve their workplace environment to attract workers.

Let's dismantle their core arguments. They claim that unionization drives up production costs. This argument ignores the offsetting benefits of increased productivity and innovation that unions often foster. Studies have found that unions do not hurt productivity and can make a company a more desirable place to work, thereby helping attract more and better job applicants.

They also argue that labor unions resist technological advancements. However, this is a mischaracterization. Unions prioritize retraining and adaptation programs to support workers during transitions. For example, union apprenticeship programs are leading in diversity and showing higher success rates all around compared to non-union programs, especially for women and people of color, according to a 2021 research study conducted by Dr. Larissa Petrucci through the University of Oregon’s Labor Education & Research Center. Unions allow for new perspectives, which often leads to more innovative processes.

Finally, they argue that union influence leads to inefficient resource allocation. However, unions ensure fair labor practices, boosting economic stability and long-term growth. They foster a collaborative and innovative work environment, driving productivity and economic growth.

While it's undeniable that unions cause short-term losses for companies, the long-term gains for the economy as a whole are undeniable.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Alright, let's get to work. The opposition tries to paint a rosy picture of labor unions, but we're here to show that their arguments don't hold up under scrutiny.

First, they accuse us of using a straw man fallacy, saying we oversimplified labor union goals. But that's not true. We acknowledge unions aim for better wages and conditions, but we question whether those goals always lead to overall economic growth. Our point is that these goals can have negative consequences, like making businesses less competitive. This is not distorting their argument; it's analyzing the broader impact.

Second, they claim that unionization doesn't necessarily drive up production costs and that our source is biased. They specifically target The Heritage Foundation. Yes, it's true that The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. However, pointing this out doesn't magically erase the data. It's an attempt to discredit the source, and thus the argument, based on its affiliation rather than the validity of its claims. They argue that companies may raise wages in response to unionization, but this is precisely the problem. To remain competitive, they would likely raise prices, which will increase inflation. In fact, research has tied labor markets with high employment protection and high unionization rates to higher inflation. As *Bowdler and Nunziata's research in the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking in 2007* found, strong labor market institutions can tie wage growth to inflation developments, and this can then give rise to wage-price spirals . They also say that fair wages lead to greater willingness to work for the company, which translates to lower recruitment fees. However, this is not necessarily true as the company may have to reduce workforce to accommodate the higher costs of labor. For example, *Blue Origin* announced a reduction of approximately 10% of its workforce in February 2025.

Third, they argue unions can help with technological advancements by ensuring a just transition for workers. However, their example of the Communication Workers of America negotiating with AT&T is not representative of all unions. Many unions still resist automation and new technologies out of fear of job losses, even when those technologies could boost productivity. By prioritizing retraining over innovation, unions might inadvertently slow down economic advancements. In fact, a study on the effect of labor unions on firm innovation indicates that innovation production declines in each year following unionization.

Finally, they say unions provide a crucial check on corporate power, ensuring fairer resource allocation. However, this assumes that unions always act in the best interest of the overall economy, which isn't always the case. Unions can sometimes prioritize their members' interests above all else, even if it means hindering economic growth or innovation. Moreover, strikes, which are a common tactic used by unions, can have significant negative impacts on the economy. As reported by *the ILR School's Labor Action Tracker*, worker strikes can lead to disruptions in production and supply chains . Therefore, it is very important to remember that labor unions may not always be beneficial to economic growth.

In conclusion, we have shown that the opponent's rosy picture of labor unions fails to account for the very real negative impacts on innovation, competitiveness, and overall economic prosperity. We urge you to critically evaluate the evidence presented and to support policies that foster a free and competitive market, where businesses can thrive and create jobs for everyone.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Alright, let's get to it. The opposition paints a rosy picture of unions, but they are ignoring key economic realities. They commit a straw man fallacy by oversimplifying our arguments and then attacking that simplified version. We're here to show that unions, while claiming to help, often hinder overall economic growth.

First, let's talk about wages. The opposition claims unions boost wages, leading to more spending and economic growth. But this assumes a closed system, ignoring the broader economic impact. Higher union wages do not automatically translate to increased consumer spending in an open global market. Higher union wages can mean higher prices for consumers, less investment in businesses, and fewer jobs overall. It is not as simple as 'more wages equals more growth'.

Second, they say unions reduce income inequality. However, union wage increases can come at the expense of business earnings, potentially reducing investment and job creation for non-union workers. This can actually *increase* inequality. Unions primarily benefit their members. According to *Statista*, in 2023, only around ten percent of U.S. workers were members of labor unions. Therefore, the benefits of unions are only enjoyed by a small percentage of the population.

Third, the opposition claims unions invest in worker training, leading to a more productive workforce. While training is great, union-led programs may prioritize union members over broader economic competitiveness. This can lead to a skewed allocation of resources, benefiting a select few at the expense of overall productivity gains.

Fourth, they argue unions are a check on corporate power. But this isn't the only check. Competition, consumer choice, and regulations all play a role. To say that unions are the *only* check is simply untrue.

Now, let's reinforce our main points. As we discussed, unionization increases production costs, making domestic industries less competitive. Higher labor costs hurt businesses. *Belman's 1992* study concluded that the effects of unions on productivity and costs vary by industry and by the period under consideration. As *Belman's 1992* study found, while unions can increase productivity in some industries, these gains are often offset by higher compensation costs, leading to a less favorable impact on overall costs .

Also, unions often resist new technologies, even when those technologies would improve productivity. This resistance is rooted in legitimate concerns such as job displacement and wages.

Finally, union influence can lead to inefficient resource allocation. Resources are diverted to satisfy union demands instead of going where they are most needed. *Albert Rees, in his 1963 Journal of Law and Economics* article, "The Effects of Unions on Resource Allocation," suggests unions affect productivity by restricting labor supply and work rules, setting off changes to employers’ allocation of capital and innovations to make more efficient use of higher-cost labor .

In conclusion, while unions may have some benefits, their negative impacts on economic growth cannot be ignored. They create rigidities in the labor market. Economic progress depends on many factors. Therefore, while unions may offer some benefits, their overall impact on economic growth is detrimental. We urge you to consider the evidence and support policies that foster innovation, competition, and sustainable economic growth for all. These policies could include deregulation to promote business dynamism, investment in education to create a more adaptable workforce, and tax incentives for research and development.

End of Rebuttal Stage Comparison
Question 4: Closing Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
Friends, we've reached the heart of this debate. Our opponents claim labor unions hinder economic growth, but they miss the forest for the trees. This debate boils down to whether we champion an economy that lifts everyone, or just a select few. They paint unions as a drag, but we've shown they are actually a for economic progress.

First, unions drive up workers' earnings. This doesn't just benefit workers; it benefits the entire economy. It cultivates a more resilient middle class and lessens inequality, which ultimately fortifies society. Our evidence is more and . According to *a 2021 report by the Economic Policy Institute*, unions not only raise wages for workers but also establish standards that non-union employers often follow to attract and retain employees . This creates a ripple effect, benefiting a broader segment of the workforce.

Second, let's dismantle the opposition's arguments. They argue that unions inflate production costs, but they ignore the fact that skilled, well-compensated workers are more productive. Their claims are based on assumptions and sources. *Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2019* indicates that unions play a significant role in reducing income inequality by increasing the bargaining power of workers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of profits .

Finally, the core issue here is fairness. It's about ensuring everyone has a fair shot. Do we want an economy that works for all, or one where the rich get richer while others are left behind? Unions are essential for stimulating growth.

Support our position, and support an economy that works for everyone. By empowering workers and promoting fair labor practices, unions contribute to a more prosperous and equitable society.
Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
In conclusion, this debate boils down to whether we prioritize inclusive growth or accept an economy that leaves many behind. We've shown that unions are essential for inclusive growth, despite claims that they undermine competitiveness.

First, unions drive economic growth by boosting wages through collective bargaining, which fuels consumer spending. While opponents worry about price increases, unions enhance productivity through training and stability. The Communications Workers of America's tech training with AT&T proves unions facilitate technological adaptation.

Second, unions reduce income inequality, benefiting all workers. *A 2018 Economic Policy Institute report* states that union membership raises wages for both union and non-union workers, setting a higher wage standard. This creates a fairer wealth distribution.

Finally, let's address the opposition's flawed arguments. They suggest unions resist technology, but the CWA-AT&T example shows unions promote a just transition through retraining. They also claim unions lead to inefficiency, but unions check corporate power, advocating for fairer wealth distribution. Furthermore, their reliance on the Heritage Foundation is questionable, as *a 2021 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research* reveals that their analysis often lacks methodological rigor and is driven by ideological biases.

Therefore, unions are vital for sustained and inclusive economic growth. They empower workers, reduce inequality, and ensure progress benefits all. Support policies that strengthen unions for a more prosperous and equitable society. Choose inclusive growth. Empower workers. Vote for economic growth with labor unions.
Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Friends, we've arrived at a critical juncture. Our opponents argue that labor unions are beneficial for economic growth. However, we have clearly demonstrated that they are, in reality, significant obstacles that ultimately impede prosperity for all.

First, we successfully illustrated how unions inflate production costs, resist essential technological advancements, and misallocate resources. These factors are simply unsustainable in today's intensely competitive global market. Their arguments fail to adequately address these real-world economic challenges.

Second, let's examine the weaknesses in their arguments. They presented a simplistic view of wages, neglecting the complexities of global competition. They also failed to adequately address the fact that union benefits primarily accrue to a small fraction of the workforce, leaving the majority behind. Furthermore, their evidence often came from sources with a clear bias. For example, *The Wall Street Journal reported in 2022* that much of their data comes directly from union-funded studies, which often present a skewed picture of union impact . This is a critical oversight that undermines their entire premise.

The central question remains: who truly benefits from these policies? Do we support measures that favor a privileged few, or do we champion policies that foster innovation and create opportunities for everyone? It's crucial to promote widespread economic growth. Our vision prioritizes strategic deregulation, targeted investment in education, and robust research and development. These policies cultivate a dynamic economy where everyone has the chance to thrive, not just a select group.

Therefore, I urge you to support our vision for a stronger, more inclusive economy. Choose growth. Choose opportunity for all.
Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Friends, this debate boils down to whether we prioritize a broad-based, dynamic economy or one constrained by special interests. Our opponents claim labor unions foster sustained and inclusive economic progress.

But economic progress relies on many factors, not just labor unions. Innovation, investment, and deregulation are also crucial for fairness.

Now, let's reinforce our argument that union wage increases harm business earnings and overall job creation, contradicting the claim of unions reducing income inequality. *The American Enterprise Institute* has found that union wage increases can harm business earnings, potentially reducing job creation for non-union workers. According to *economist James Sherk's 2009 analysis for the Heritage Foundation*, mandatory collective bargaining reduces overall employment . This increases inequality, the very problem unions claim to solve.

Let's also reinforce the claim that unions drive up production costs, making domestic industries less competitive. Remember that many studies supporting unions are funded by the unions themselves, so their sources are biased.

Regarding unions' role in technological advancement, union-led training programs prioritize union members over broader economic competitiveness. This leads to skewed resource allocation, benefiting a select few.

The choice is clear. We can cling to a union-centric approach, or embrace policies that foster innovation, competition, and sustainable economic growth for all. Deregulation, investment in education, and tax incentives are paths towards a more prosperous future for everyone.
End of Closing Stage Comparison
(Optional) Question 5: Which factors were most crucial in your assessment?
Additional Question 1 / 2
(Optional) Question 6: How long did you spend on this whole evaluation process (including reading the motion, listening to the debate, and answering the questions)?
Additional Question 2 / 2

If you find that you can't submit the results, please check back to see if you have filled in your name and if you have answered every required question with *. Thank you.

© CMU Debate Team