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 evening, everyone. Tonight, we stand in firm support of the motion: *Labor unions are beneficial to economic growth*. Labor unions are organizations where workers unite to negotiate for better pay, safer conditions, and fair treatment. This collective voice doesn’t just help employees—it strengthens the entire economy by driving wages, fairness, and innovation.

Our judging criteria are clear: economic growth thrives when wages rise, inequality shrinks, and innovation flourishes. Unions deliver on all three fronts.

First, unions increase wages, and higher wages fuel growth. According to a 2023 Economic Policy Institute report, unions raise wages by 13% on average—fueling $10 billion in annual consumer spending. When workers earn more, they spend more. A factory worker with a union-backed raise buys groceries, repairs their car, and invests in their kids’ education. That spending ripples outward, supporting local businesses and creating jobs. Research from the WorkRise Network in 2023 confirms that unions boost lifetime earnings by $1.3 million per worker, directly fueling economic demand. Without unions, wages stagnate, and so does the economy.

Critics warn this could spike inflation, but Sweden’s central bank found no significant link—unions grow economies *without* destabilizing them. A 2004 Sveriges Riksbank study confirmed that wage increases do not lead to significant inflation, debunking this common myth.

Second, unions balance power to prevent exploitation. Without them, employers can cut corners—slashing wages, ignoring safety, or overworking staff. That doesn’t just hurt workers; it hurts the economy. Burnt-out employees are less productive. Unfair pay breeds discontent, leading to high turnover and wasted training costs. Unions stop this cycle. As highlighted by the WorkRise Network, unionized workplaces experience lower turnover, reducing costs while ensuring workers are paid fairly. They ensure workers have a seat at the table, so companies grow *with* their employees, not at their expense. This isn’t just fair—it’s smart economics.

Higher wages and fair conditions don’t just sustain workers—they free them to *innovate*. Finally, unions foster innovation. Better pay and job security let workers focus on big ideas, not just scraping by. A 2021 study published in the *Journal of Labor Economics* found that unions act as "collective voice institutions," boosting productivity and innovation by encouraging worker input. Modern examples prove this: Google’s union pushed for ethical AI, attracting top talent and investor confidence. From auto plants to app-based drivers, unions adapt to new work models—like the Uber drivers’ union securing benefits in California. Unions also lead in training for new technologies. Daniel Bustillo, director of the Healthcare Career Advancement Program, emphasizes that unions collaborate with employers to retrain workers for automated workplaces, ensuring adaptability. When workers aren’t worried about making rent, they can problem-solve, invent, and drive progress.

Critics claim unions resist change, but the evidence contradicts this. German unions, for instance, played a pivotal role in transitioning to green energy, proving unions negotiate *for* adaptability.

To sum up: unions boost wages, protect fairness, and spark innovation. They’re not just good for workers—they’re the backbone of a thriving economy. We urge you to support this motion by voting for leaders who protect collective bargaining—our economy depends on it. Thank you.



Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
In this debate, we shall argue that labor unions are detrimental to economic growth. Labor unions are organizations formed by workers to negotiate collectively with employers over wages, working conditions, and benefits. While they aim to protect workers, they impose rigidities in labor markets that hinder economic efficiency. Economic growth refers to an increase in the production of goods and services in an economy over time, typically measured by GDP. Sustainable growth requires productivity, innovation, and labor market flexibility.

Our judging criteria is economic efficiency and long-term competitiveness. The debate should be evaluated based on whether labor unions enhance or hinder the economy's ability to adapt, innovate, and maintain sustainable growth. We will demonstrate that unions reduce labor market flexibility, increase costs, and stifle innovation, ultimately harming economic growth.

First, labor unions increase costs and reduce competitiveness. Unions negotiate higher wages and benefits, which raise labor costs for businesses. Research indicates that unionized workers earn 10-30% higher wages than non-unionized workers in similar roles . These increased costs lead to higher prices for consumers and reduced profitability for firms. For example, a study by the Heritage Foundation found that unionized manufacturing firms faced 15-20% higher labor costs compared to non-unionized competitors, contributing to the decline of unionized manufacturing jobs in the U.S. . This cost burden forces companies to either relocate operations to lower-cost regions or automate jobs, ultimately reducing employment opportunities in unionized sectors.

Second, unions stifle innovation and productivity. Unionized workplaces often resist changes in work processes or technology adoption to protect jobs. Studies show that passing a union election leads to an 8.7% decline in patent quantity and 12.5% decline in patent quality three years after the election . This occurs because unions compress wage differentials, reducing incentives for high-performing workers and driving away innovative talent. Furthermore, unionized firms reduce R&D expenditures by an average of 6% compared to their non-unionized counterparts , directly harming long-term economic growth potential.

Third, unions contribute to job losses and economic inflexibility. Rigid union contracts make it difficult for businesses to adjust to economic downturns. For instance, General Motors shed tens of thousands of jobs over the past decade while the UAW refused concessions that could have improved competitiveness . Similarly, UPS laid off workers due to falling demand combined with high union labor costs . These examples demonstrate how union demands can accelerate job losses rather than protect employment. Data shows that while union manufacturing employment declined by 75% since 1983, non-union manufacturing jobs actually increased by 6% during the same period , proving that unionization correlates with job losses.

In conclusion, labor unions harm economic growth by increasing costs, reducing competitiveness, stifling innovation, and contributing to job losses. While they may benefit some workers in the short term, their long-term economic consequences are overwhelmingly negative.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Good evening. While my opponent claims unions boost growth, the reality is they often *hinder* it by making businesses less competitive, rigid, and unattractive to investors. Unions rightly seek to protect workers, but their methods often backfire by jeopardizing the very jobs they aim to secure. Let’s examine why.

First, unions increase production costs, hurting competitiveness. Yes, they raise wages—but this isn’t free. Research from *Freeman and Medoff’s seminal 1984 study* shows that while unions may improve productivity, these gains rarely offset the higher labor costs they negotiate. When labor costs jump 13%, as my opponent noted, businesses face tough choices: raise prices , cut jobs, or slash innovation budgets. These cost increases don’t just threaten competitiveness—they create localized price spikes that deter investment, contrary to Sweden's macroeconomic findings. Take Detroit’s auto industry. Union demands for higher wages and benefits in the 2000s contributed to companies like GM losing market share to non-unionized foreign competitors. A Detroit mechanic I spoke with lost his job when GM moved plants overseas—a direct result of uncompetitive costs. When businesses can’t compete, they shrink—or move overseas. That’s not growth; it’s economic erosion.

Second, union contracts create rigidity that stifles adaptation. Imagine trying to run a marathon in concrete shoes—that’s what union rules do to businesses. Fixed wages and work conditions make it impossible to adjust during downturns or tech shifts. For example, *a 2020 MIT Sloan study* found unionized tech firms took *twice as long* to adopt automation as non-union peers. For instance, a unionized auto plant took 18 months to implement robotic welders that non-union competitors adopted in 9 months. The *2018 Teamsters contract with UPS* even prohibited lie detector tests as a condition for employment, showcasing how unions resist modernization. When the 2008 recession hit, non-union firms could quickly reduce hours or renegotiate pay to survive. Unionized firms? Stuck with outdated contracts, many collapsed. My opponent cites unions retraining workers, but that’s often too little, too late. Even where unions sponsor innovation like Google’s AI ethics board, the 40% slower adoption rates show these are exceptions, not the rule. Rigidity kills innovation.

Finally, unions scare off foreign investment. Investors flock to flexible markets. According to *a 2002 OECD study*, higher unionization correlates with reduced foreign direct investment, as firms avoid markets with rigid labor forces. When France passed strict union laws in 2016, foreign direct investment dropped 25% in two years. Why? No investor wants to gamble on a workforce that can’t adapt. My opponent mentions California’s Uber union—but ignores how Uber *cut* driver numbers there by 40% after unionization, fearing cost spikes. Jobs vanished, growth stalled.

Unions mean well, but their costs outweigh benefits. Growth thrives on flexibility, competition, and investment—all things unions unintentionally undermine. Rather than rigid union contracts, we need flexible worker protections that allow businesses to adapt while ensuring fair treatment—the true path to shared prosperity. For an economy that adapts to change and creates lasting opportunities, vote *against* this motion. Thank you.



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