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.



Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
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.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
Let’s dismantle the opponent’s arguments with evidence and clarity.

First, they claim unions raise costs and hurt competitiveness. This ignores the economic reality that higher wages fuel growth. Research from the *U.S. Department of the Treasury* in 2023 confirms unions boost wages by 10–15%, directly increasing consumer spending—the engine of local economies. When unions negotiate fair pay, workers reinvest those dollars in haircuts, car repairs, and dinners out. The opponent cites labor costs but overlooks the $10 billion in annual consumer spending unions generate. If higher wages killed competitiveness, why does Germany—where unions co-manage productivity—lead in manufacturing? Unions don’t drain profits; they *redistribute* them to sustain demand.

Second, the opponent’s claim about R&D spending ignores reality. Boeing’s unionized 787 team delivered groundbreaking innovations while cutting costs, proving unions don’t stifle progress. The 6% R&D reduction claim cherry-picks data while ignoring *MIT research* from 2023 showing unionized firms file *more* patents when workers share profits. Unions drive innovation through collaboration, not conflict. Take IBM’s union contract: it standardizes base pay while offering 15–20% bonuses for top performers, demonstrating how fairness and merit coexist. Google’s union pushed for ethical AI, attracting talent who value worker voice. German unions retrained auto workers for electric vehicles, proving unions don’t resist change—they *channel* it. The opponent’s narrative collapses under these examples.

Third, the GM/UPS job-loss argument is misleading. The UAW’s 2019 concessions saved *three Ohio plants*—proof unions adapt to preserve jobs. GM’s decline stemmed from *management* failures, not labor costs. Meanwhile, non-union job growth often means lower wages and higher turnover, which *hurts* long-term productivity. A 2015 *Department of Labor* study of 50 unionized workplaces found 25% lower absenteeism and stronger training outcomes. The 75% union decline in manufacturing? That’s globalization and automation—unions fought to *retrain* workers, not cling to obsolete roles. The UAW’s "JOBS Bank" retrained 80% of displaced workers for tech positions, showing adaptation, not resistance.

Finally, unions stabilize economies. They standardize wages but still reward merit—like IBM’s union-negotiated bonuses for top performers. According to *Forbes* in 2023, unions now partner with employers on AI and green tech, ensuring workers *and* companies benefit from innovation. The opponent’s narrow focus on costs ignores how unions prevent exploitation, boost productivity, and sustain consumer demand. Without them, inequality widens, spending power shrinks, and growth stalls.

Unions transform challenges into progress. They turn wages into growth, conflict into collaboration, and job losses into retraining opportunities. Economies with strong unions—like Denmark and Germany—outperform because they balance fairness with flexibility. The opponent blames unions for broader economic shifts, but the evidence is clear: unions don’t *cost* jobs—they *transform* them. They don’t stifle innovation—they *democratize* it. Unions are the backbone of a fairer economy—where wages become growth, and workers drive progress.



Output A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Thank you, chairperson. Esteemed judges and colleagues, while the affirmative team presents unions as economic saviors, their arguments contain four critical flaws we must address: they misattribute Germany's success to unions alone, cherry-pick innovation examples while ignoring systemic R&D declines, blame external factors for union-driven job losses, and overlook how union rigidity creates long-term economic harm.

First, on wages and growth, the affirmative claims unions boost consumer spending through higher wages. This ignores how concentrated wage hikes distort markets. Research shows that while unionized manufacturing jobs declined by 75% since 1983, non-union manufacturing jobs grew by 6% . Why? Because when unions force unsustainable labor costs—like the UAW’s $70/hour total compensation at GM—companies either automate or relocate . The $10 billion in union-driven consumer spending they cite is offset by the $15-20 billion in higher production costs that make U.S. goods uncompetitive . Germany thrives not because of unions, but despite them—its "flexicurity" system allows wage moderation during crises, which U.S. unions reject.

Second, their innovation argument collapses under scrutiny. They cite Boeing’s 787, but omit that union strikes caused 3-year delays and $12 billion in cost overruns . The MIT study they reference is an outlier—a metastudy in the *Journal of Financial Economics* found unionized firms reduce R&D by 6% and lose top inventors . At Tesla’s non-union Fremont plant, productivity is 30% higher than UAW plants because merit-based bonuses—not rigid pay scales—drive innovation . Unions don’t democratize ideas; they standardize mediocrity.

Third, their defense of GM and UPS job losses is misleading. The UAW didn’t "save" Ohio plants—it delayed their automation until GM collapsed, while Tesla created 50,000 non-union jobs adapting to electric vehicles . The affirmative blames globalization, but OECD data proves nations with flexible labor markets retain manufacturing jobs by adjusting wages during downturns . Unions don’t transform jobs; they fossilize them.

Finally, their "stabilization" claim backfires. German unions did support green energy—but by demanding lavish subsidies, they made Germany’s electricity costs 40% higher than the U.S. . Meanwhile, non-union Amazon invested $1.2 billion in upskilling programs without collective bargaining . Worker protections need not come at the cost of economic dynamism.

In sum, unions create zero-sum economics: short-term gains for members, long-term losses for growth. The affirmative’s equity-focused metrics ignore how their policies reduce the pie for everyone. True prosperity requires the flexibility unions inherently oppose.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Let’s set the record straight. The opponent’s arguments sound good in theory but collapse under real-world evidence. We’ll dismantle their claims by showing unions harm innovation, increase costs, and create job losses—proving they’re detrimental to economic growth.

First, their innovation claims are cherry-picked. They mention Boeing and Google but ignore the hard data showing unions reduce innovation. Research from MIT’s Sloan School of Management in 2023 proves unionized firms file 8.7% fewer patents . Why? Because unions compress wages—when everyone gets the same raise regardless of performance, star employees leave. According to a 2023 study in *ScienceDirect*, unions counteract technological change by prioritizing job protection over efficiency, stifling innovation . The opponent cites one Boeing team, but Boeing’s overall R&D spending dropped after union demands increased. For every Google example, there are ten companies where union rules blocked new technology. Non-union Tesla outpaced unionized GM in electric vehicles because they could adapt quickly without rigid union constraints.

Second, higher wages don’t automatically mean growth. The opponent says unions boost pay by 15%, but ignores the consequences. Those costs get passed to consumers through higher prices—or worse, companies automate or relocate. Look at Carrier moving factories to Mexico after union demands made U.S. plants uncompetitive. Germany’s co-management works because it’s fundamentally different—their unions accept mandatory wage flexibility during crises, something most U.S. unions reject, making their model uniquely adaptable. According to *The Heritage Foundation* in 2009, unionized manufacturers face 20% higher costs, explaining why 75% of union factory jobs disappeared since 1983 while non-union manufacturing grew . While unions increase some spending, the higher prices they cause reduce purchasing power for all consumers.

Finally, on jobs: yes, the UAW saved three Ohio plants, but at what cost? GM still closed four others. Unions focus on protecting current jobs at the expense of creating new ones. UPS kept union workers during the pandemic—then invested $780 million in automation after the contract ended, cutting 12,000 positions, as reported by *Business Insider* in 2023 . The opponent mentions training programs, but non-union Amazon’s Career Choice program retrains workers in 60 days, compared to union programs averaging six months. While union programs take longer, they often lead to higher-paying skilled trades—but at the cost of fewer total workers retrained.

The bottom line? Unions create short-term gains for some workers but long-term losses for everyone. They make companies less competitive, less innovative, and less adaptable. True economic fairness comes from creating more good jobs, not protecting fewer at higher cost. Together—less innovation, higher costs, and fewer jobs—this is why union-heavy economies grow slower. Don’t judge unions by their promises; judge them by their results. And the results show they hurt growth.

End of Rebuttal 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