The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrBrooks
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Car Insurance Should Not Be Allowed To Discriminate Based On Gender

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MrBrooks
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,007 times Debate No: 24268
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

It is common practice for car insurance companies to charge different premiums for male and female drivers. I will be arguing that this should not be allowed. Con will argue that it should.

The first round is acceptance.
MrBrooks

Con

I accept my opponent's challenge and will be arguing that car insurance companies should be able to discriminate based on gender on the basis that they should be able to charge whatever rates they want in a free market economy. I look forward to this debate and wish my opponent luck.

Let's get this debate cooking.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

Difference Between Gender And Other Traits

Car insurance companies charge more if you're responsible for an accident, or if you have points on your license. For an example from another insurance industry health insurance companies charge smokers higher premiums. This is acceptable discrimination, because it is based on traits that people can actually control.

The clear difference is that gender is not a choice. Even if on average men pose a greater risk to the car insurance company it's not like the man could've just chosen to have been born as a woman. He is being penalized for something that is beyond his control.

We would not allow car insurance companies to charge people different rates based on race or ethnicity even if there was some significant statistical difference. If they did that there would be protests and a public outcry over it. We should likewise not allow discrimination based on gender.
MrBrooks

Con

Insurance companies are private enterprise, and this must not be forgotten. In the insurance business you are in essence placing bets on your clients; betting that they won't get into accidents. If someone is a riskier bet then you charge them a higher rate to compensate for a higher risk of loss. Since insurance companies cannot possibly know everything about their clients they must base some of their decisions off of statistics; age, gender, and habits.

Even my opponent admits that it is acceptable for insurance companies to charge different rates based on statistical analysis. It is actually good business strategy to charge different rates based on gender, because men are much more likely to get into accidents than women. This is not discrimination, because it follows the same logic as health insurance companies charging different rates based on age; an older person is much more likely to get sick, therefore the insurance company must charge more to make up for this loss.

Let's take a look at some statistics I pulled from one of my sources. [1]

1) 3.41 men receive tickets for reckless driving for every 1 woman.
2) 3.09 men drive under the influence for every 1 woman.
3) 3.08 men receive tickets for not using seat belts for every 1 woman.
4) Men are almost 100% more likely to die in car accidents than women are between the ages of 16-19.

Looking at this data shows men are much riskier drivers and therefore cost insurance companies a lot more money than women.

Now my opponent makes the argument that it isn't "acceptable discrimination" to charge different rates based on gender, because men can't control the fact that they are men. To this I point to the fact that the DMV will revoke the licenses of people with certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy and blindness. A person with epilepsy can't control the fact that they have epilepsy, but they also have a much higher chance of losing consciousness and suffering from altered awareness behind the wheel of a vehicle. The same logic applies to car insurance companies charging higher rates for men, because men are much more likely to get injured and die behind the wheel of a vehicle; the fees of which the insurance company has to cover. [2]

I also put a question forward to my opponent: what right does the government have to tell a privately owned company what acceptable discrimination is? Last time I checked someone could charge whatever they wanted for their goods and services, and until 1964 they were able to associate with whoever they wanted to. In a free society we should be able to associate with whoever we want, and charge whatever rates we want for our goods and services. It is immoral for someone to try and get the government to revoke someone's rights, because they do not agree with the choices that they make.

[1]http://editorial.autos.msn.com...
[2]http://www.epilepsy.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
MrBrooks

Con

My opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
MrBrooks

Con

Opponent has quit.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
MrBrooks

Con

Opponent forfeited, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
MasturDbtorMrBrooksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits obviously. Even without them though Con's arguments were far superior. Pro's case relied only on the contention that discrimination for things you can't control is unjustified. Con however easily refuted this with both real life examples in things like blindness and epilepsy, with the contention regarding the need for insurance companies to actually make a profit and differential premiums, and finally by drawing on the philosophy of free association.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
MasturDbtorMrBrooksTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Also, good arguments on Con's part, especially with the examples of other non-chosen but discriminated conditions.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
MasturDbtorMrBrooksTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfieted all rounds and Con had a solid opening argument.