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
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
Good morning, everyone. We're here today to discuss whether labor unions are beneficial to economic growth. We firmly believe they are, and we will demonstrate why.

First, let's define our terms to ensure clarity. By "labor unions," we mean organizations representing workers to improve their wages, working conditions, and overall well-being through collective bargaining. "Economic growth" encompasses more than just GDP figures. It signifies overall economic growth, measured by indicators such as GDP, productivity, and income equality, across all age groups, genders, and income levels, within the current global economic landscape. It’s about a rising tide that lifts all boats.

Now, how do we determine whether labor unions truly benefit economic growth? We propose that the key criterion is sustainable and inclusive economic growth. By sustainable and inclusive economic growth, we mean growth that not only increases overall wealth but also protects the environment, creates jobs for all skill levels, and reduces disparities in income and opportunity. Does union activity lead to economic improvement that benefits a broad spectrum of society, not just a select few? Does it foster long-term stability and shared prosperity? We believe the answer is a resounding yes.

Now, let’s explore why labor unions are a catalyst for economic growth. I will present my arguments in a sandwich structure.

First, labor unions boost wages, and this is a fundamental driver of economic activity. When workers collectively bargain, they have more leverage to negotiate for fair compensation. Higher wages mean more money in the pockets of working families, which fuels demand, drives production, and stimulates economic growth. According to *the Economic Policy Institute*, unions raise wages for workers from every background. The *institute's* research indicates 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. Unions help raise wages and push for benefits and fairer treatment, creating a more level playing field. *A 2021 report in The Journalist's Resource by Clark Merrefield* 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 common measure of income inequality.

Third, unions invest in worker training and skills development. Unions often provide apprenticeship programs, training courses, and other resources to help their members improve their skills, leading to increased productivity and competitiveness. *MEPI Policy Analyst Andrew Wilson* stated that the biggest distinction between union and nonunion construction career training programs is the financing mechanism. He added that union programs include a self-financing instrument that does not exist in the nonunion side of the industry. This self-financing mechanism ensures that union training programs are well-funded and sustainable, leading to higher quality training and more skilled workers.

In conclusion, labor unions are not a barrier to economic growth. They are, in fact, a vital engine for creating a more prosperous and equitable society for all. As we look to the future, let's consider policies that empower workers and foster a more prosperous and equitable future for all, building a society where everyone can thrive. We look forward to demonstrating this throughout the debate.

Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Good morning, everyone. We're here to discuss whether labor unions are truly beneficial to economic growth. While my opponents have presented a seemingly straightforward case, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality, one where unions often hinder rather than help long-term prosperity.

First, let's briefly address their definition of economic growth. While increased job creation, higher wages, and a more equitable distribution of wealth are certainly desirable outcomes, they don't paint the whole picture. We need to ensure we are using a complete and accurate measure of economic growth.

Now, about those judging criteria – job creation, wage growth, and income equality. While important, these are insufficient on their own. Focusing solely on these metrics ignores other crucial aspects of a thriving economy, such as productivity, innovation, and overall competitiveness in the global market.

So, let's get to the heart of the matter. We argue that, on balance, labor unions hinder, rather than help, economic growth. We will demonstrate how the seemingly positive impacts of unions are often outweighed by their negative consequences on the broader economy.

First, labor unions artificially inflate wages above market equilibrium. This may sound good in the short term, but it leads to higher prices for consumers, reduced competitiveness for businesses, and ultimately, job losses as companies struggle to remain profitable. According to *a 2009 report by The Heritage Foundation*, unionizing raises wages, but these wage increases come at a steep economic cost . They cut into profits and reduce the returns on investments. Businesses respond predictably by investing significantly less in capital and R&D projects. *The Heritage Foundation* points out that unions have the same effect on business investment as a 33 percentage point corporate income tax increase . Businesses may choose to automate tasks or relocate to areas with lower labor costs, harming the overall economy.

Second, union-negotiated contracts reduce workplace flexibility, impeding innovation and productivity growth. Strict rules and regulations can stifle creativity, discourage risk-taking, and make it difficult for companies to adapt to changing market conditions. A 1987 study by Hirsch and Link found that unionization is associated with firm managers perceiving their firms as being less innovative than their competitors. When businesses can't innovate and adapt, economic growth suffers.

Finally, union activities, such as strikes, disrupt production and negatively impact economic stability. Work stoppages can cripple industries, disrupt supply chains, and create uncertainty in the market. *Noggin* reported that in 2024, the manufacturing industry experienced a total revenue loss of $2.8 billion from striking activity . This can deter investment and slow down economic growth.

In closing, we need to consider the long-term economic health of our nation. Economic growth is like building a house. You can quickly put up walls using cheap materials, creating the illusion of progress, but without a strong foundation and quality materials, the house will eventually crumble. Similarly, short-term gains achieved through union activity may mask underlying weaknesses that ultimately undermine long-term economic prosperity. We must look beyond the surface and consider the true impact of labor unions on our economy.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Good morning. We're here to discuss whether labor unions are beneficial to economic growth, and it's crucial to critically examine the claims made by the opposition.

First, let's address the definitions and criteria proposed. While defining labor unions and economic growth might seem straightforward, the opposition's definitions overlook key nuances. Their criteria for judging the effects of labor unions are incomplete, failing to account for crucial factors such as productivity, innovation, and overall competitiveness. To truly assess the impact, we need a more comprehensive framework that considers these elements.

Now, let's move to the main arguments. The opposition claims that labor unions boost wages, which in turn increases consumer spending. However, this argument ignores several critical factors. It's not as simple as "higher wages equal more spending." The wage increases driven by unions are not universally beneficial; they can lead to inflation, potentially negating the increased purchasing power. According to *a 2018 study in ScienceDirect* by Bhattacharya, Sen Gupta, and Samal, increased demand, partly fueled by higher wages, can contribute to rising food and non-food prices, ultimately driving inflation . This means that the supposed benefit of higher wages could be offset by the increased cost of goods and services, leaving consumers with little to no real gain.

Furthermore, this argument fails to acknowledge that union-negotiated wages don't exist in a vacuum. These higher costs can translate to higher prices for consumers, reduced investment in innovation, and ultimately, job losses as companies struggle to compete. As *the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank*, points out, union wage gains come out of business earnings . To cover these increased costs, companies often have to raise prices, potentially losing customers in competitive markets. Unions disproportionately benefit their members at the expense of non-union workers, creating a two-tiered system that is not conducive to overall economic growth. In fact, *Statista reported in 2023* that only around ten percent of U.S. workers were members of labor unions, highlighting the limited reach of these benefits .

Furthermore, the opposition claims that collective bargaining through unions reduces income inequality, leading to a stronger middle class. Again, this argument neglects broader economic forces.

Therefore, we must consider the potential downsides. First, unionization drives up production costs, making domestic industries less competitive in the global market. As *Investopedia, a website providing resources about investing*, explains, unions can limit labor market flexibility by negotiating higher wages, benefits, and better working conditions, which can increase costs for employers . Second, labor unions often resist technological advancements that could improve productivity but might displace workers. Finally, union influence can lead to inefficient resource allocation, as resources are diverted to satisfy union demands rather than market needs.

In contrast to the opposition's view, our vision for economic growth emphasizes innovation, free markets, and a level playing field where all workers have the opportunity to succeed. We believe that fostering a competitive environment, encouraging technological advancements, and promoting policies that support entrepreneurship are the keys to sustainable economic prosperity.

End of Opening 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