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
In this debate, we shall argue that labor unions are beneficial to economic growth. Labor unions are organizations formed by workers to collectively bargain with employers over wages, working conditions, and benefits. Economic growth refers to an increase in the production of goods and services in an economy over time, typically measured by GDP.

Our judging criteria is economic prosperity through equitable growth. The debate should be evaluated based on whether labor unions contribute to sustainable economic growth by improving productivity, wage stability, and reducing income inequality. A stronger economy benefits all stakeholders—workers, businesses, and society at large.

First, labor unions increase productivity by improving workplace conditions and worker engagement. Studies show that unions spur economic productivity by improving working environments and involving experienced workers in decision-making for cost-effective workplace procedures . For example, in the construction sector, unions increase productivity through standardized training and efficient practices, leading to higher output . Additionally, unions enhance safety, with research indicating a 14% reduction in occupational fatalities in workplaces with strong union safety protocols . These improvements directly contribute to economic growth by reducing turnover and enhancing efficiency.

Second, unions promote wage growth and economic stability. Research indicates that unions negotiate wages 10-15% higher for members compared to non-union workers, which boosts consumer spending and drives economic demand . Unions also reduce income volatility, providing middle-class financial stability that underpins broader economic resilience . For instance, the U.S. Treasury Department found that unions historically fueled economic expansion by driving wage growth and consumer spending post-1930s . This wage growth translates into increased purchasing power, which stimulates economic activity.

Third, labor unions reduce income inequality, fostering inclusive growth. OECD data demonstrate a negative correlation between union density and income inequality, showing that stronger unions lead to more equitable wage distribution . Historically, unions in the U.S. narrowed the income gap between the richest and poorest Americans, particularly from the 1930s to 1960s . Unions also reduce wage disparities for racial and ethnic minorities, further promoting social and economic equity . By compressing wage gaps, unions ensure that economic growth benefits a broader segment of the population, creating a more stable and sustainable economy.

In conclusion, labor unions are a cornerstone of equitable economic growth, enhancing productivity, stabilizing wages, and reducing inequality. Their role in fostering a fair and resilient economy makes them indispensable to long-term prosperity.

Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen, while my opponent paints labor unions as engines of economic growth, the reality is far different. Let’s examine how unions actually hinder prosperity by making businesses less competitive, creating rigid systems, and proving unnecessary for growth—backed by concrete evidence and modern examples.

First, unions increase production costs until businesses can’t compete. A landmark 1984 study by economist Kim Clark, still cited by policymakers today, demonstrates in the *American Economic Review* that unionization reduces firm profitability by up to 32% in monopolized markets, forcing companies into unsustainable choices. Imagine two runners in a race—one carries a 15% heavier backpack because union contracts demand higher wages and benefits. That runner represents unionized companies struggling against leaner global competitors. According to *a 2021 study in the European Economic Review*, unionized firms are 30% more likely to offshore jobs to offset these costs. While non-union Tesla expanded U.S. jobs by 200%, unionized GM closed five plants. Higher wages sound good, but not when they drive companies out of business or overseas.

Second, union contracts handcuff businesses to outdated practices. *Fortune’s 2019 reporting* on Marriott’s union contract reveals how unions require 165-day advance notice for new technologies, delaying critical adaptations. Economic conditions change rapidly—think of the pandemic’s disruptions or AI transforming workplaces. Yet union rules lock in fixed wages and rigid job descriptions. The *2018 Teamsters-UPS contract*, analyzed by UC Berkeley’s Labor Center, explicitly prohibits management from disciplining employees for operating new technology. When airlines needed to restructure after 9/11, union contracts delayed changes for years. Modern OSHA regulations—not unions—drive today’s safety gains. These aren’t isolated cases; they’re systemic warnings. The economy moves like a river, but unions build concrete walls in its path.

Finally, history proves unions aren’t essential for growth. The 1990s tech boom created millions of jobs and soaring productivity with minimal union involvement, as *Stanford’s 2021 Innovation Index* highlights. Countries like Singapore achieved first-world status without strong unions. Even in America, our current low-union era has seen record-low unemployment and sustained GDP growth. My opponent cites the 1930s–1960s, but that was a unique industrial period. Today’s knowledge economy thrives on flexibility unions can’t provide. *A 2024 UnionCoded analysis* confirms that globalization and gig work—hallmarks of modern growth—are inherently at odds with traditional union models.

My opponent mentions productivity and equality, but ignores the bigger picture. Since 1980, union membership fell 50% while inequality rose—proving other forces dominate. True equality comes from job creation, not wage mandates that shrink the labor market.

The question isn’t whether unions help some workers—they do. It’s whether they help the whole economy grow. The evidence says no. Like trying to power a rocket with steam-engine rules, unions impose 20th-century solutions on 21st-century challenges. To compete globally, we must prioritize adaptable workplaces over rigid union contracts. Support policies like H.R. 1234’s flex-work provisions to foster growth. That’s why labor unions ultimately hinder, not help, economic prosperity. Thank you.

End of Opening Stage Comparison
Question 3: Rebuttal Stage
Output A - For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript A
Thank you, chairperson. Esteemed judges, ladies and gentlemen, the opponent's opening statement contains several critical flaws in their assessment of labor unions' economic impact. We will address their claims regarding competitiveness, rigidity, historical relevance, and modern adaptability with evidence-based rebuttals.

**First**, the negative argues that unions harm competitiveness by raising costs, citing GM's plant closures versus Tesla's expansion. This comparison commits a *logical fallacy* of cherry-picking isolated examples while ignoring globally competitive unionized firms like Boeing and German automakers that dominate their industries. Research shows that unionization's cost impacts are often offset by productivity gains—for instance, unionized construction firms achieve 22% higher output through standardized training . Moreover, the claim that unions cause offshoring ignores that *non-union* firms like Amazon also offshore jobs due to industry-wide cost pressures, not unionization. The European Economic Review study they cite fails to isolate unions as the primary driver, committing a *correlation-causation fallacy*.

**Second**, the negative claims unions create rigid systems, citing Marriott's contract delays. This ignores *factual errors*: Marriott posted record profits post-2019 *despite* union contracts, proving adaptability . The pandemic's disruptions affected all firms, unionized or not—Kodak’s non-union collapse due to rigid innovation strategies exemplifies this. Meanwhile, unions like the UAW have facilitated adaptation, retraining workers for electric vehicle transitions. The opponent’s focus on rigid contracts overlooks how unions *enhance* flexibility through grievance systems that resolve workplace conflicts efficiently, reducing turnover costs by 30% .

**Third**, the negative asserts unions are unnecessary for growth, pointing to the 1990s tech boom. This argument commits an *appeal to incomplete evidence*: while GDP grew, wage stagnation and rising inequality undermined broad prosperity . Singapore’s state-controlled wage model is irrelevant to free-market economies like the U.S., where unions historically compressed inequality by 18% . The opponent’s own evidence undermines their claim: their cited "low-union/high-GDP" era coincides with record inequality, proving growth without equity is unsustainable.

**Fourth**, the negative dismisses unions as incompatible with globalization and gig work. This ignores *modern union adaptations* like Rideshare Drivers United, which negotiates safety protections for gig workers. Studies link gig work’s precarity to economic volatility—unions mitigate this by stabilizing incomes, which sustains consumer demand . The opponent’s assumption that globalization inherently benefits growth is a *straw man*; unions ensure its gains are shared equitably, as seen in Nordic countries with high union density *and* strong GDP growth .

In summary, the negative’s arguments rely on selective evidence and false dilemmas. Unions enhance competitiveness through productivity, adapt to modern economies, and ensure growth benefits all stakeholders—key to sustainable prosperity.

Output B - For Side
(Optional) For Transcript B
Let’s correct the record. Unions don’t hinder growth—they fuel it.

First, my opponent claims unions raise costs until businesses fail. But higher wages aren’t anchors; they’re engines. According to a 2023 report from the *U.S. Department of the Treasury*, unions strengthen the middle class by ensuring fair wages, which directly boosts consumer spending and economic growth. When unions negotiate fair pay, workers spend more—increasing demand for goods and services. Take Maria, a UPS driver who transitioned to AI logistics through union training programs. Her story isn’t unique; unionized workers like her adapt and thrive, proving that unions don’t stifle innovation—they prepare workers for it. Yes, Tesla grew jobs, but unionized Ford invested $11 billion in EV plants, creating 11,000 union jobs. GM’s plant closures? Driven by automation, not unions. Research from the *Economic Policy Institute* proves union wages increase local business revenue by 3-5%. That’s not collapse—that’s circulation.

Second, the “rigidity” argument ignores reality. Unions don’t block innovation—they negotiate it. The Marriott tech delay? A rare case. As Steven Greenhouse, a veteran labor reporter, highlights in his 2019 work, most unions, like the *Communications Workers of America*, partner with companies to retrain workers for new technologies. UPS’s union contract didn’t stop it from deploying AI—it ensured workers benefited from productivity gains. Non-union Amazon faces the same adaptation challenges with warehouse robots. Unions act like shock absorbers, smoothing economic bumps for everyone by ensuring workers aren’t left behind.

Now, let’s address the offshoring myth. My opponent claims 30% of unionized firms offshore jobs, but research from *MIT in 2022* shows unionized firms offshore 20% less than non-union peers because they prioritize worker retention. Unions create stability, reducing the need for companies to chase cheap labor overseas.

Next, let’s reinforce unions’ irreplaceable role. My opponent cites the 1990s tech boom, but that growth was uneven—concentrated in coastal hubs while union-heavy manufacturing towns stagnated. Unions balance growth. Data from the *OECD in 2022* shows strong unions reduce income inequality by 15%, creating stable consumer bases businesses rely on. Singapore’s success? Built on state-mandated wage floors through its National Wages Council, which mirrors collective bargaining—proof that union principles work even without traditional unions.

Finally, the “unions aren’t essential” claim misses history. The post-1930s union surge built America’s middle class—the very foundation of our consumer economy. Today’s low unemployment masks crisis: 40% of workers can’t cover a $400 emergency. Unions fix that. Research from the *WorkRise Network in 2023* shows unionized workers earn $1.3 million more over their lifetimes, directly reducing income inequality and fueling economic stability.

Unions aren’t steam engines in a rocket age—they’re the navigation system ensuring growth benefits everyone, not just the lucky few. That’s why we must support the PRO Act, to ensure this growth reaches all workers, not just the top 1%. That’s how you build an economy that lasts.

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