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
For Side
(Optional) For - Transcript
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 A - Against Side
(Optional) Against - Transcript A
Thank you chair person. Steam judges ladies and gentlemen while the affirmative team presents labor unions as indispensable for economic growth. There were bottles rely on selective evidence and flawed comparisons. We will systematically dismantle their arguments by demonstrating how unions undermine competitiveness perpetuate rigidity. Lack historical necessity. And fail to adapt to modern economies. First on competitiveness. The affirmative sites boeing and german automakers as proof that unions don't harm competitiveness. This is a textbook cherry picking fallacy. For every boeing there are dozens of unionized firms like gm and sears that collapsed under union driven costs. Research shows that 73% of unionized manufacturers in the us underperform non-union peers in profitability precisely because collective bargaining raises labor costs by 15 to 20% without commensurate productivity gains heritage foundation. The affirmative claim that productivity offsets costs ignores that non-union firms like tesla achieve higher productivity growth 7% annually without union mandates stanford innovation index. They're offshoring argument also fail. While non-union firms may offshore unionized ones do so 30% more frequently to escape unsustainable contracts. European economic review. The bottom line unions impose a systemic cost disadvantage. Second on rigidity the affirmative points to marriott's prophets in the uaw's electric vehicle retraining as evidence of adaptability. This is a hasty generalization. Marriott success stems from its global brand. Not union contracts that delayed ai-driven customer service upgrades by 6 months fortune. Meanwhile the uaw's retraining programs came only after decades of resisting automation. During which detroit lost 40% of its auto jobs. Uc berkeley labor center. The airline industries post 9/11 struggles prove the norm. Union contracts delayed cost-saving measures for 3 years. Bankrupting for carriers. Osha data confirms that 92% of workplace safety improvements since 2000 came from regulatory mandates. Not union lobbying you have labor statistics. Unions don't enable flexibility. Play stifel. Third on historical necessity. The affirmative claims the 1990s tech boom exacerbated inequality. Is conflates correlation with causation. Inequality rose due to globalization and tax policies. Not lack of union. In fact the tech boom created 11 million jobs and boosted gdp growth to 4% annually. Dwarfing the 2.5% average of the high union 1970. Stanford innovation index. The affirmatives oecd data is misleading. Nordic countries with high union density also have flexible labor markets eg denmark's flex security model. Which unions in rigid economies like france oppose? Unions weren't drivers of past growth they were beneficiaries of unique post-war industrial conditions. Fourth on modern adaptability the affirmative celebrates rideshare drivers united as proof unions can evolve. This is a false equivalence only 0.2% of gig workers are union. And platforms like uber. Classify drivers as contractors to avoid unionization. Precisely because collective bargaining is incompatible with gig works on demand nature. Union code number four. Nordic countries high union density works only due to centralized bargaining absent in the us. Here localized union demands egla teacher strikes routinely disrupt growth. The truth. Unions are structural obstacles to the agile skills-based economy we need. Conclusion. The affirmative case hinges on outliers and nostalgia. The data proves union systematically raise costs resist innovation.

Output B - Against Side
(Optional) Against Transcript B
Let’s dismantle the myth that unions are net positives for growth. The evidence shows they impose unsustainable costs, hinder flexibility, and are unnecessary for prosperity. Here’s why.

First, productivity gains don’t offset union costs. The opponent cites construction sector training, but this ignores industry-wide realities. Research from *Springer* demonstrates that unionization in France is associated with poorer financial performance, with profits declining by 10% due to wage hikes unmatched by productivity gains . To put this in real-world terms, a factory employing 100 workers might need to lay off 10 employees to absorb such a profit drop. Even their own evidence admits non-union firms offshore jobs—proving cost pressures are universal. But unions worsen this: Tesla’s non-union model created 200% more U.S. jobs, while GM’s union contracts shuttered plants. Productivity is meaningless if businesses can’t afford to stay open.

Second, growth thrives without unions. The 1990s tech boom—minimal unions, maximal growth—exposes their non-essential role. Singapore’s success further proves unions aren’t prerequisites for prosperity. The opponent claims unions reduce inequality, but that’s a straw man: our argument isn’t about equality—it’s about growth. You can’t redistribute wealth if unions stifle its creation. Nordic countries, often cited as high-union success stories, actually rely on flexible labor markets where unions negotiate at the national level rather than firm-by-firm, allowing for faster adaptation to economic changes—a model we haven’t replicated.

Third, flexibility suffers under union rules. The 165-day delay for tech adoption at Marriott isn’t an outlier—it’s systemic. According to *a study in the Cambridge Journal of Economics*, rigid union contracts reduce innovation by limiting managerial discretion and investment in R&D . After 9/11, airline unions blocked restructuring for years, delaying recovery. Meanwhile, OSHA’s own data shows 80% of safety gains post-1980 came from regulations, not collective bargaining. Unions didn’t adapt; regulations forced them to.

Fourth, higher wages have hidden costs. Yes, unions negotiate raises—but these inflate consumer prices and drive jobs overseas. The opponent’s “wage-growth-equals-demand” theory ignores that artificial wage hikes distort markets. *The Brookings Institution* found that union wage increases function like a 33% corporate tax hike, slashing business investment and job creation . This isn’t just theoretical—look at Rideshare Drivers United, which represents less than 2% of gig workers. If unions were scalable to the new economy, we’d see far broader adoption. Their inability to adapt proves their obsolescence.

Unions aren’t evil—they’re obsolete. Growth demands flexibility, not rigid contracts. The data is clear: unions burden economies more than they help. To unlock 21st-century growth, we must support right-to-work laws that empower individual workers, not outdated collective bargaining. Vote against unions to secure a competitive future.

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