Should Women be Allowed to Drive?
Debate Rounds (5)
No forfeits. Please only accept if you have an argument. Thanks
Good luck Pro
Clarification of Semantics
In anticipation that the opponent may try and make an argument based upon semantics, I'll offer a few clarifications regarding the structure of the opponent's resolution and why this makes some semantics-based arguments inapplicable.
"No one should be allowed to drive, because driving is dangerous."
Ignoring the pragmatic issues associated with such a statement, we can see this argument to be outside the scope of the resolution by noting the word "women".
If the opponent were attempting to argue that people shouldn't be able to drive, then the added specificity of "women" would not be necessary. Because this term narrows the resolution to the specific case of women, it implies that the resolution does not mean "people" when it says "women".
"Women under the age of 16 should not be able to drive."
This statement would not be within the scope of the resolution.
Because the term "women" is included in the resolution, there is the direct implication that the topic of argumentation will specifically involve women and driving. To claim that you were "really" only referring to women of a particular age would go against the clear implication of the resolution.
In other words, when a resolution contains a term of specificity, debaters are bound to the specific attributes mentioned. However, there are many implied specificities that do not need to be explicitly stated in order to be considered relevant and binding. E.g., the statement "bombs can blow people up" would be considered true, despite the fact that some bombs are defunct.
Because of the opponent's opening line, it is clear the burden of proof will be shared. The opponent set a clear resolution for himself and a clear resolution for me. Both of these resolutions are different and mutually exclusive, thus implicating a shared burden of proof.
Because both of our resolutions contain "should", it is clear that there is a moral/ethical component to this debate. I will be taking the stance that the opponent should either tacitly or specifically agree to use "common sense ethics", since few moral systems can be sufficiently proven true, especially in the finite space offered here.
By using "common sense ethics", we can largely ignore the ethical component of the resolution and focus on the pragmatic side. This would result in a more fruitful debate. As always, the opponent has the right to reject the notion of common sense ethics and substitute his own moral brand.
1. Women aren't worse drivers than men.
Men produce testoterone, while women produce estrogen. These are natural hormones secreted by the pituitary gland, and are commonly referred to as 'hormones'.
Testosterone tends to make one more aggressive and less risk-averse. Given this, it is not surprising that men tend to get into more accidents than women, especially when considering accidents involving a fatality. 
If we are to gauge "quality of driving" by the likelihood of an accident or death and wreckless driving, then we must conclude women are better drivers.
Given this, it cannot be argued that women shouldn't be able to drive "because they aren't good at driving". In reality, they are slightly better at driving than men, on average.
2. It isn't fair to disallow women to drive.
While I will choose not to make a moral argument, I cannot help but make an argument regarding justice.
Allowing men to drive, but not women, would represent a violation of civil liberties to a gargantuan scale. But basically, it would be sexism. Since we have demonstrated that there is no pragmatic reason to disallow women from driving, to do so anyway would represent an arbitrary standard that limits a particular group from an activity despite no "good reason to".
In a society that so highly values freedom and equality, it would be a great injustice to implement such a limiting policy.
3. The Slippery Slope
Allowing the 'banning' of women from driving establishes a precedent for future implementations of equally as limiting and unfair policies. If it is justifiable to ban women from driving, it is equally as justifiable to ban men from cooking or chlidren from laughing or any equally as limiting law.
In order to prevent future unjust policies, we have to ensure that current policies do not pave the way for overly restrictive legislation.
4. Women need to drive.
While there is no negative utility to women driving (P1), there is significant positive utility. A great many single women have jobs. Many of these women would be unable to go to these jobs if they could not drive, resulting in a net decrease in employment and, as a result, the economy. In 2010, 48.6% of the US labor force consisted of women.  Clearly, preventing a significant number of these women from getting to work would tank the global economy.
There is additional utility to women driving that extends beyond the economy. There are many instances in which a woman would need to drive in order to survive. Whether this is making a drive to a hospital or to a grocery store, the inability for women to drive would directly result in a decrease in health and the loss of life. If even one woman dies because she was unable to drive to a location she desperately needed to be/to buy something from, then the entire policy unjust since there are no benefits to implementing it.
We've looked at various "semantics" arguments the opponent might make and described why they were outside the scope of the provided resolutions.
We next demonstrated that women should be able to drive, for the following reasons:
1. They aren't worse drivers than men.
2. It represents a gross miscarriage of justice.
3. It opens the door to future freedom-restricting policy.
4. It would significantly damage the economy.
5. It would lead to the loss of life.
Considering that there are no benefits to banning driving for women, it is clear that we should not implement such a policy. I have affirmed my resolution: Women should be allowed to drive.
1 - http://www.express.co.uk...;
2 - https://www.dol.gov...;
To clarify I will be debating that only women (female adults) should be banned from driving, men should still be allowed to drive. Burden is shared. I do believe a moral argument is stronger but I'd like to hear any argument for women driving and the winner will be decided by voters.
1. "Women aren't worse drivers than men"
Gauging the quality of driving is not as simple as merely looking at how many women or men are involved in accidents, or die on the roads, there are a vast number of factors to look at e.g. the average distance men drive, the types of roads men drive on. Women normally ask men to drive longer distances or along roads they are afraid of, at night etc. Yet, despite the lack of evidence of women being better drivers men in the U.K. have to pay much more car insurance for the same vehicle.  Even if men are proven to be better drivers I don't believe they should have to pay less insurance because that would be sexist! Banning women from driving would end the sexism that exists today. Your first source even says that 72% women believe men are better drivers, 83% men think they are better drivers, making men pay more is utterly wrong. The article you showed exists purely to tell men to believe that women are better or superior, it is therefore totally unreliable. Feminists want you to believe they are good drivers even when they are afraid of motorways, driving late, more emotional etc.
The research from the source my opponent uses is clearly sexist, and typical of feminists wishing to feel superior to men The survey is a complete joke, it doesn't even bother to look at actual overall skills used when driving, it just looks at 'particular' mistakes like cutting in, jumping lights, speeding etc which men are likelier to do meaning the results could be different if men and women were judged on different mistakes not that this is a good way to tell who is better at driving anyway. A good driver is one who continually seeks to improve his driving; there seems to be far less advanced women motorists and observers.
It should be obvious that men are better drivers because a man's goal is logical happiness and thus logical ability such as driving. A woman's life goal is to be emotionally happy, this means that striving to improve abilities like driving is unnatural for them, there is nothing to gain for them however men who can drive will be more appealing to women. We should not encourage women to be more like men because this increases hatred towards men and prevents women being happy and therefore hinders a man's ability.
2. "It isn't fair to disallow women to drive"
It is strange that my opponent says we live in a society which values freedom and equality when men have to pay more car insurance for the same vehicle. Answer this question: would you rather be banned from buying and wearing lipstick, or have to pay more for lipstick because you are a man? Banning people can show people what they should be, it helps them achieve a high goal, but treating people unfairly by making them pay more for the same thing is simply wrong and extremely unhelpful.
I think my opponent thinks it would be unfair because it is like giving a child candy and then taking it away. Showing women how to be happy is not a bad thing, they do not lose out by not being able to drive, men would because they enjoy driving, it is why they strive to be better drivers, and go too fast.
3. The slippery slope
Nope, banning men from cooking is completely different, cooking is a skill, women find men who can cook attractive, but men don't mind whether a woman can cook. This shows it would be wrong to ban men from cooking. Having less rights is not always a bad thing.
4. Women need to drive
You say 'many women would be unable to go to these jobs if they could not drive' however what is stopping them from walking, paying for a taxi or a bus? Or asking for a lift? Nothing. So the economy would not be affected because women would be able to get to their work place.
You say 'there are many instances in which women would need to drive in order to survive' however there is nothing stopping them or someone else calling for an ambulance. Women can shop online for groceries, walk to a market, pay for a taxi, a bus, ask for a lift etc. Women's health would not suffer directly nor indirectly because they don't have a car, and they certainty would not die just because they don't have a car. It is outrageous to think so.
Can you give an example of a woman who has died because she did not have a car?
I thank my opponent for his hasty response.
Before I jump into defending my arguments, I'll address one key point that relates to many of his attacks. This regards insurance.
The opponent's only argument actually supporting his resolution is basically this: "It is sexist that men pay more for car insurance, therefore we should disallow women from driving in order to stop this sexism."
We first need to establish that higher insurance rates for men is not sexism. In the study I referenced in the first round , it was found that women tend to be better drivers than men, though both women and men tend to think that men are better drivers.
Despite the "common perception", actual data suggests that men are much more likely to engage in dangerous driving behaviors than women. An insurance company does not base rates upon "public perception", but instead the cold, hard facts. Because men are more likely to get into accidents, men are more likely to make the insurance company pay out.
This means that the average man will cost more to an insurance company than the average woman. As such, it is financially justifiable that men pay higher premiums than women. This is the exact reason why young drivers are likely to have higher rates than older drivers -- younger drivers are more likely to get into an accident as a result of inexperience.
Because there is a realistic, fair and justifiable reason to charge men higher car insurance premiums than women, it cannot be said that these rates are sexist.
1. Women aren't worse drivers than men.
The opponent argues that "the quality of driving is not as simple as merely looking at how many women or men are involved in accidents..." He then argues that these are additional factors that need to be looked at:
a) The average distance men drive.
b) The types of roads men drive on
c) When men/women are driving. (Night vs Day)
No evidence was presented for (a), (b) or (c). And even if we suppose that these factors are relevant to "driving quality", it is completely irrelevant in the eyes of an insurance company. When it comes to the types of behavior that often lead to accidents (as my source explores), women prove themselves to be less wreckless.
This means that women cost the insurance company less money. We could come up with a billion and a half arbitrary standards for what defines a "good" driver. One person might believe that a "good driver" is one that can drive standard while another might believe a "good driver" is one that can parallel park.
Instead of going into these truly inumerable possible interpretations of "good", it is better to use the pragmatic interpretation of "good". Ie, the commonly understood definition of "good". Since we are discussing insurance companies, it should be noted that such a company would define "good" as "getting in fewer accidents". Since the opponent's sole argument focuses on insurance companies, it is worth noting that these companies view women as better drivers.
As for the "sexism" claim, this was addressed in the opening point of this speech. There is a realistic financial justification for charging men more for insurance. Sexism only occurs when an arbitrary standard is introduced that negatively impacts a group of people without due cause.
The opponent then claims that the evidence is "sexist" because it concludes that women are better drivers than men. This evidence is simply looking at the data and coming to conclusions. Raw data cannot be sexist. The data included in said source was fairly collected, so it did not discriminate against men or women during the collection process.
Given this, it cannot be said that my source is somehow "sexist". That would be like saying an article called "Old People Dying More Than Young People" is ageist. It's not discriminatory if that's what the data actually says.
The opponent's final point here is that "men are better drivers because a man's goal is logical happiness ... A woman's life goal is to be emotionally happy..."
The opponent seems to be implying that women are less logical than men, to the degree that it is relevant to driving. While it is true that the "average" male brain is more suited to logic while the female brain is more suited to "language", the opponent would need to prove that this disparity is significant enough to affect driving.
Driving isn't a task that is particularly difficult to do. People of very low intelligence are capable of doing it well. Suppose women are 5% worse at logical tasks than men. If we were to ban women from driving because of these fact, we would also need to ban all people who were >5% less intelligent that the average person. In other words, we would ban all people with an IQ less than 95.
Clearly this notion is ridiculous, as some 34.5% of the population has an IQ that is less than 95.  Banning more than a third of the population from driving based solely upon a "slightly lower than average IQ" is just as ridiculous as banning half of the population (women) from driving because they have "slightly lower than average logical capabilities".
2. It isn't fair to disallow women from driving.
The opponent's critique of this argument is addressed above in my "insurance" argument. It is not sexist for insurance companies to charge men higher premiums.
My original argument still stands since his falls -- It is not fair to ban women from driving, since there are no significant reasons to do so.
3. The Slippery Slope
The opponent largely ignores this argument by referencing a singular example of my overall argument and claiming it isn't true. The main argument itself hasn't been defeated or even referenced.
Again, I was arguing that passing such a policy results in a slippery slope -- establishing a precedent for equally as arbitrary and limiting leglislation.
As for the specific example regarding cooking, the opponent says, "women find men who can cook attractive, but men don't mind whether a woman can cook."
Two things are wrong with this. First, it implies that a person should only have rights if the other gender finds those rights to be "attractive". Secondly, the opponent attempts to speak for all men and all women without so much as a shred of evidence. For both of these reasons, the opponent's argument against this point is ludicrous.
4. Women need to drive.
The opponent states "what is stopping [women] from walking, paying for a taxi or a bus? Or asking for a lift?"
Many working women do not live within walking distance of where they work. Some women don't even have access to public transportation. Under a "ban all women from driving policy", nearly all women from small towns would be unable to get to work, especially if their partner works as well. This would be terrible for the economy.
What's more, public transportation was constructed to a size to fit current demand. If all women suddenly needed to use public transportation, there simply wouldn't be enough room to support these women. This would result in lost productivity, lost jobs and lost economic output. Again, terrible for the economy.
Similarly, women in small towns, not having access to public transportation, would be unable to get to the grocery store. All small town single mothers would have to walk to the grocery, which might be a 20 mile hike, then somehow transport all of those groceries back. This is not feasible if she has children, since they can't be left alone and since they can't handle a 20 mile hike.
The opponent's only argument against women driving is that "it is sexist because of insurance rates". I've demonstrated that this is false. What's more, I've shown a large economic and health negative impact from them not being able to drive. Clearly this policy shouldn't be passed.
1 - http://www.express.co.uk...
2 - http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com...;
Determining the quality of people's driving is much more complicated than Pro thinks. Pro says I have not presented any evidence for a, b, or c factors but I have given factors that should be taken into consideration before any claim about women being better drivers should be made.
Below are just some factors that explain why men are involved in more accidents.
U.S. men drive 63% more than women 
U.K. men drive 20% more than women 
women drivers are 28% less likely to drive at night than men " a time when the risk of serious accidents increases 
More than 30 years ago, only one in three men and one in 20 women aged over 70 held a driving licence; today, three in four men and one in three women are licensed to drive. 
When someone causes an accident it is likelier to be a man
Also an insurance company doesn't know how often your mum and dad drive when they use the same car. Any claim that women are better than men and deserve to pay less is therefore clearly sexist. What if black people have more accidents (there's bound to be a difference) should they pay more? Would it be okay to be racist too? Apparently so, in America African Americans do pay more than Asians while Caucasians pay the least. Is it right to pay more because of the colour of your skin or the body you were born in?
A good driver is a person who has a good attitude to learning, and a good sense of responsibility. Being able to do a parallel park doesn't make someone a good driver but if someone can't do it then they are clearly not a good driver. Research has shown that men not only learn to drive faster, they are also more likely to pass their test first time and they even take a third less time to learn. Studies have shown that men are better at reading maps and parking while women tend to avoid parallel parking 
Insurance companies view women as better drivers because they are sexist. Ask yourself this, is it fair for a good driver who happens to be male to pay more because statistically men drive more, and are statistically drive at night more etc?
Sexism is defined as discrimination on the basis of sex, clearly men are being treated differently if they are paying more for the same cover. I've never said raw data is sexist, the conclusion that women are simply better drivers is sexist. Your source is inaccurate like any feminist research which aims to say women are superior. Data doesn't say women are better drivers, sexists do.
Women are okay with men not being emotionally happy, so women should be okay about not driving. Driving is not particularly difficult but driving safely is!!!! I've never said women shouldn't drive due to lacking intelligence, it is their goal that differs.
2. it isn't fair to disallow women from driving
There are significant reasons to ban women, hatred toward men and women would decrease, and men would not be discriminated against. Do you not think there is any reason to stop sexism, or other forms of hatred like racism?
3. the slippery slope
The idea that change is a bad idea and could lead to other changes is stupid. People should have rights if they help them achieve a high goal, since driving doesn't help women to achieve a high goal they do not 'need' to drive.
4. women need to drive
I really don't know why my opponent continues to argue that women need to drive. Those many women who do live within walking distance of work you are on about could catch a bus, taxi, etc. The claim that nearly all women from small towns would be unable to work is false, there are plenty of businesses in towns, and ways to make money online, or on the telephone. I really don't get why you say nearly all women would be unable to work especially if their partner works as well because if they have a partner then surely they can drop them off to work as well. So the economy wouldn't suffer in the slightest bit.
My opponent wants voters to think that if we ban women from driving it must be enforced immediately without any thought so that women have problems. Public transport can be constructed to a size to fit demand, and the environment will be better if there are no women drivers because shared transport would increase.
Women who live in small towns are within walking distance to a grocery store, you won't find a town without a grocery store! I seriously doubt they'd have to walk 20 miles within a town or city to get to a grocery store and walk back. If it is that far away why don't they order their groceries online?
You have not answered my question in round 2 which was can you give an example of a woman who has died because she did not have a car?
 Men spend an average of 260 hours per year driving, compared with 208 hours for women, a survey shows.
The opponent is attempting to frame this issue in such a way that "allowing women to drive is sexist, because of insurance rates." Before I get into the specifics of my case, I'd like to thoroughly dismantle that argument.
I concede that we cannot prove whether women are better drivers than men, or vice versa. The opponent himself has agreed that there are too many factors to consider when making a determination.
We do know three things. Two of these the opponent brought up, the other I brought up:
1. Men drive more frequently than women.
2. Men drive at night more frequently than women.
3. Men are more likely to be involved in an accident than women.
(3) follows from (1) and (2) -- Clearly if men are driving more, they will be involved in a greater percentage of accidents. Now, the important question: Are car insurance rates sexist?
In order for an insurance rate to be sexist, it would need to unjustly discriminate based upon sex. This means that the company would need to offer different rates without adequate justification. Does this justification exist? In short: yes, very much so.
Consider how insurance works. A company charges a large group of people a particular rate each month and promises them a specific amount of coverage should an accident of some sort occur. This coverage is almost always larger than the net total paid by the insuree. In order to make profit and have insurance actually work, two things have to happen:
(a) The premiums paid must be sufficient.
(b) The net coverage payouts must be less than the net premiums received.
When an insurance company can document a financial justification for charging people different premiums, it has the legal right to do so. Not doing so threatens to destroy the insurance company.
Notably, there is a financial justification for charging men and women different rates. 
(a) Women get in less accidents than men.
(b) Men are 10% less likely to wear a seatbelt.
(c) If fatal accidents resulting from speeding, men were more likely to be the cause.
(d) Men are 2.5 times more likely to get a DUI than a woman.
All of these factors, plus the ones conceded by the opponent, indicate that men are more likely to need coverage than women. As such, it is financially justifiable and financially necessary to charge men higher premiums.
Because a significant justification from premium differences among sexes exists, it cannot be said that the premium is sexist. The opponent asks, "Is it fair for a safe male driver to pay a higher rate?" The answer is clearly yes. An insurance company cannot wave a device over a person's brain and determine how safe they individually are. Instead, they can only work off of data that tracks the averages of large groups of people.
But Wait, There's More!
We've established that insurance premiums are not sexist. With that alone the opponent's argument falls and he fails to support his resolution. But let's assume that the opponent presents some truly remarkably evidence -- a source that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that car insurance premium differences among sexes is sexist.
Even in that case, this resolution cannot be supported. In that case, the only idea that would be supported is: "Insurance companies shouldn't be able to discriminate based upon sex."
Women should not be punished because private insurance companies are using sexist practices. (For the rest of this argument, we'll just go ahead and assume insurance is sexist.) That would be exactly the same as saying: Some pet food makers produce low quality food, therefore we should ban pet ownership.
Insurance is only tangentially related to the issue of women driving. It is one legal aspect of driving that doesn't even relate to the actual purpose of driving itself -- getting from point A to point B. The opponent needs to prove why we would ban all women from driving rather than, say, forcing insurance companies to charge everyone the same rate.
As we've seen, the opponent's only argument from banning women drivers is that "insurance is sexist". Why, then, would we not just change the insurance company?
What's more, in this scenario, banning women from driving only fixes one particular symptom, rather than addressing the cause of the problem. Insurance companies charge different home insurance rates dependent upon where you live -- If we use the same logic as women driving, we surely can conclude that this is discrimination based upon location. And banning women from driving wouldn't stop this discrimination in any way, meaning we haven't truly stopped discrimination which, according to the opponent, is our biggest concern.
There is a justifiable reason to charge men more than women for car insurance. This reason is that the data proves men need car insurance payouts more often than women.
What's more, even if insurance was sexist, this resolution still shouldn't be supported. Banning women for driving may stop "car insurance sexist", but it doesn't stop all of the other kinds of "discrimination" that insurance companies are allowed to do. If it were proven that insurance companies do discriminate, the obvious solution is to change the rates insurance companies can charge.
1. Women are better drivers than men.
I have conceded this point. I still stand by my evidence that proves men are more likely to be in accidents than women. Sure, I can't really prove that this makes women "better drivers", but it does prove that insurance companies are justified in price differentials between sexes.
2. It isn't fair to disallow women from driving.
The opponent's response here is lacking, to use a kind term.
The opponent states, "[under this policy] hatred toward men and women would decrease".
Since I am not a fortune teller, I cannot specifically prove what would happen if this policy happened. Rather, I'll leave that thought experiment up to the voter: Do YOU think that women would be happy with this policy? Do you think this would make them "hate men less"? Do you think that even a majority of men would support this idea?
Common sense and a basic understanding of human emotion implies that intersex hatred would skyrocket after this policy was enacted.
"Men would not be discriminated against."
Again, a thought experiment for the voters. If you're a man whose wife suddenly couldn't drive, would you feel as though you had an extra burden on your shoulder's? Wouldn't you feel that said policy had made your life more difficult? Wouldn't it even seem a bit like discrimination -- that women not don't have to drive while you do? That you now have to make up for her inability to drive?
3. Slippery Slope
So as to prevent the opponent from straying from the argument I'd like him to talk about, I'll drop this point.
4. Women need to drive.
Women make up ~49% of the workforce. Many women drive to work. If these women are unable to drive to work, there will clearly be a burden placed on women. Getting to work will be more difficult.
Many women work a significant (>10miles) distance from their home. The opponent is seriously suggesting that these women should either a) begin using public transportation or b) just quit their job, if public transportation is unavailable.
Consider the number of jobs that require driving: 18 wheeler driving, taxiing, couriers, farmers, food delivery, bus drivers, anyone who works in warehouse transportation, most city officials, etc.
All of the women would have to quit these jobs under the opponent's policy. Just one of these jobs, 18-wheeler driving, has over 200,000 women drivers.  This is just one job! This proves, without a doubt, that women need to drive.
I believe my case stands strong on its own. I look forward the opponent's response.
1 - https://www.esurance.com...
2 - http://www.layover.com...
Since he agrees that it is not possible to accurately determine whether men or women are better at driving due to the many factors I have given, his first argument which was "women aren't worse drivers than men" can be ignored. Women therefore should not pay less for car insurance simply because they are female. People should be charged more for lacking experience etc.
During Pro's second argument "it isn't fair to disallow women from driving" he claims he is not a fortune teller and cannot prove what would happen if a policy changed, and after realizing no-one including myself can predict what new policies will be made when one is introduced he drops his third argument about a "slippery slope".
Before I look at Pro's second argument in detail I'll quickly examine his 4th and last argument which is "women need to drive". Pro's argument goes something like this:
P1: many women drive
P2: many of those women drive to work
C: if women can't drive then many women can't drive
However there are other ways to get to work than just driving to work e.g. they could pay for a taxi or a bus, a train, they could get a lift from a friend, boyfriend, fellow worker etc. There are plenty of people who do not own a car, who do just fine, I've not heard any stories of them starving to death because they can't drive and Pro does not provide any proof that women would die without a car despite asking for such a story two times. I don't understand how public transport would not be available in a town (or more like a city) 40 miles wide. And there are more men who have driving jobs, women who drive whilst working will have to quit, but they can find something else and would have time to find other work. If they are a courier their employer may give them work in a depot instead.
Pro's second argument is "it isn't fair to disallow women from driving". There will be feminists who will complain saying 'I lost my job because I'm a woman, this is sexist' however men have had to pay more car insurance because they are a man. It would not be fair to charge women and men the same amount of car insurance because there are a lot of men have been paying more for many many years. In response to your thought experiment I would not mind, a woman would appreciate being given lifts more if they know women are not allowed to drive. Feminists/men haters strive to do the things men do like voting etc to degrade and express their hatred towards men.
It is better for men and women if women are not allowed to drive, men will not then look at drivers to see if they are women drivers and vice versa when they see bad driving.
I am disappointed with the opponent's last speech. Before now, he had been providing arguments against each point, offering the clash necessary to fulfull his obligation as Con. It's sad to see that he completely dropped my main argument from the previous round.
In the previous round, I moved away from the idea that "women are better drivers than men", instead focusing on the "insurance company sexism" and how it doesn't exist, as well as demonstrating that the opponent's entire argument simply doesn't imply "women should't be able to drive". This was completely dropped by the opponent. He didn't even bother referencing this argument at all.
I will reiterate:
Insurance company premiums are only sexist if they unjustly discriminate against one sex. I demonstrated that said companies have an absolute financial justification for this price differential, based upon the frequency and severity of accidents that separates the sexes.
(a) Men drive more often.
(b) Men drive at night more often than women, when driving is more dangerous.
(c) Men are more likely to be in an accident than women.
(d) Men are 10% less likely to wear a seatbelt.
(e) Men are more likely to get into fatal accidents due to speeding.
(f) Men are 2.5 times more likely to get a DUI than women.
All of these statistics make it clear that an insurance company can expect to pay out more coverage for the average man than the average woman. In order to continue operating, premiums have to be set based upon how "risky" the policy investment is. This risk is hedged against by charging higher premiums to groups which have a statistically significant increased probability of needing coverage.
The "insurance companies are sexist, therefore ban women from driving" was the opponent's only argument in support of his resolution, "women shouldn't be able to drive". I have clearly dismantled that argument here, thus making me the only debater left upholding his end of the resolution. I have won the debate because this refutation of the opponent's entire case was dropped.
More Dropped Arguments
I went a step further and proved that even if insurance company policies were sexist, it doesn't make sense to ban women from driving. The more realistic course of action would be to stop insurance companies from charging people different rates.
If we were to do that, we would be fixing the actual problem: discriminatory rates. If we were to simply ban women from driving, we would be fixing only one symptom of the problem. Insurance companies would still be able to charge discriminatory rates when it came to all other types of insurance.
To conclude, even if the opponent produced an amazing piece of evidence proving that insurance rates are sexist, the solution is not to ban women from driving. This would only address one aspect of the problem, effectively leaving it unsolved. The more realistic course of action would be to implement policy regulating insurance company policy rates.
1. Women are better drivers than men.
So that the opponent would focus on the above two arguments, I threw the claim that "women are better drivers than men." I didn't say that I was stepping away from my claim that "women are safer drivers than men", since that it completely supported by the evidence.
The opponent's only response to this particular point is "[Because we can't prove women are better drivers than men] women therefore should not pay less for car insurance." I have already demonstrated that women are safer drivers than men, as far as insurance companies define safety. This gives them (the companies) a financial justification for charging different rates.
2. It isn't fair to disallow women from driving.
The opponent claimed that "[under this policy] hatred toward men and women would decrease".
Rather than attempt to find evidence proving the future, I decided instead to leave this statement up to the voter's imagination. Or to put it a different way, I implied that common sense dictates this policy would not "decrease hatred" in any way. Obviously, taking away 50% of Americans' right to drive would cause a great deal of anger and hatred.
The opponent's response to this in the previous speech was just an opinionated blurb about "men haters and feminists". While there undoubtedly exist people who hate men, it cannot be said that all women, or even a majority of them, "hate men".
[Fun Fact: the opponent also implied that women shouldn't be able to vote. If I didn't feel my case had already defeated the opponent's, I'd offer a kritik which would effectively demonstrate that the entire opponent's case is sexist hate speech, rather than a serious policy consideration.]
3. Slipperly Slope
I dropped this argument so that the opponent could focus on my main two "insurance" arguments.
4. Women need to drive.
This is what has happened:
1. I proved that many women commute to work.
2. I proved that undue burden would be placed on them if this mode of transport was taken away.
3. I proved that many women have jobs where they must drive to do their job.
4. I proved that forcing women to find "other ways" to work would damage the economy.
The opponent's response to this is essentially: "Nah, don't worry. Women can just find a man to take them to work. And yea, all the women who have to drive as part of their job will need to quit, but they can find other jobs."
Nevermind the fact all of the jobs that have a "driving requirement" previously held by women would be empty. Nevermind that there aren't enough men to take up the mantle of all these jobs.
In short, the opponent is saying "women will find a way to live through this decision". And that's probably true -- people are survivors. Unfortunately, the economy would still be significantly damaged, since many jobs would now be empty, since women don't have the driving requirement to have them and enough men don't exist to fill them.
The US economy would fail, that would ripple across the global economy and we'd be looking at the Great Depression 2.0.
I proved that insurance company pricing policies aren't sexist, dismantaling the opponent's entire argument. What's more, I proved even if they were, it wouldn't justify banning women from driving.
I proved that if we did ban women from driving, it would be unfair to women and it would cause extreme harm to the economy. The only apparent benefit would be "women and men no longer have to pay different insurance rate premiums".
And I really want to make this clear: The opponent is suggesting that because men and women pay different insurance premiums, we should ban all women from driving.
This notion is entirely ludicrous and I have proved that here today.
In round 2 he said he demonstrated insurance rates are not sexist by saying there is a realistic financial justification for charging men more for insurance, he gave a list of reasons (like he is doing once again). However he has conceded in round 3 that it is not possible to prove whether women are better or safer drivers than men. His exact words were "I concede that we cannot prove whether women are better drivers than men, or vice versa". This is because insurance companies don't know.
So why does Pro moan about me dropping his *main* argument now? Surely insurance companies can't be justified charging men more when there is absolutely no substantial evidence that women are better at driving. Car insurance companies are sexist because when you judge someone solely by the way they appear on the outside and treat them differently e.g. by making them pay more for the same thing THAT IS SEXISM or racism depending upon how that person is prejudiced. Just because somebody looks similar to someone else doesn't mean they will behave just them. You don't have an accident because you have black skin or because you are a man. Only a stupid feminist, sexist or racist would think so. Also just because car insurance companies have the legal right to charge men more doesn't mean its okay or not sexist.
My opponent says he has dismantled my argument but really he wants voters to judge this debate on headings he has made up such as "insurance companies are sexist, therefore ban women from driving". I have not and do not expect others to jump to the conclusion that women should be banned from driving because insurance companies are sexist. I've said it is not fair to just treat men and women equally from now on because that isn't fair on men (especially black men) who have been charged more simply because of what they look like on the surface - a feature that has absolutely no relation to that person's experience or skill when driving. Banning women from driving is the most logical solution. According to my opponent I have dropped the argument about charging the same rates despite him not showing how it would be fair to charge the same rate.
1. women are better drivers than men
Pro said he can't prove whether women are better at driving than men or vice versa. The evidence for his claim was biased.
2. it isn't fair to disallow women from driving
It's not fair that men (especially black men) have to pay more car insurance, the only way to restore fairness is to ban women from driving. Pro fails to answer my question: would you rather be banned from buying and wearing lipstick, or have to pay more for lipstick because you are a man? This questions was to show that it isn't a negative thing to be banned from something that doesn't help you to achieve a high goal.
Feminists want to do things men do like vote to express hatred. Banning women from driving would thus reduce sexism (feminists are sexist by definition). This would be fair for everyone.
3. slippery slope
This was dropped
4. Women need to drive
Pro proved that women drive, but failed to prove a need exists for women like that of men e.g. he couldn't give one story of someone who died because her car broke down and didn't have a car, and could not explain why women can't simply pay for a taxi, bus or train or get a lift from a friend. No burden exists when there are alternate ways to get to work and other places. Men enjoy driving, and are more attractive to women if they do drive whereas it is not important for women to drive, women often ask men to drive. Pro does come up with one good point that there are many women who need to drive at their workplace. However the figure he comes up with is 200,000 hardly big considering the total population of America is ~320 million with an unemployment rate of ~ 8 million - wikipedia, there are plenty of people to fill those jobs. Women who use a car for work can easily be replaced and would have time to find another job. Women would not be banned from driving immediately. Thus no damage would be caused to the economy.
I caution anyone voting to read my own words and not what Pro thinks I'm saying.
The opponent reveals that his reason for dropping my main argument the previous round was "that I dropped it".
I'd like to be perfectly clear: I dropped the argument that women are better drivers than men. I did not drop the argument that women are safer drivers than men. The entire reason I dropped the "better" term was because the opponent argued that there are "many aspects" of what makes someone a "good" driver, thus demonstrating safety superiority did not truly prove them "better".
The opponent cannot argue that a "good driver" is a classification that goes beyond safety, then flip and say I can't argue women are "safer drivers" without arguing that women are "better drivers".
Again, I have always held and still hold that women are safer drivers than men. This wasn't just some arbitrary claim; I backed it up with a significant level of evidence, all directly indicating that women are safer drivers than men. I listed these reasons in the previous round, so I will not repeat them here.
Insurance Isn't Sexist
The opponent fails to combat my evidence, claiming "insurance companies don't know [who is safer]." Prefer my evidence over his assertion.
Because the average woman is a safer driver than the average man, insurance companies are justified in charging different rates. Similarly, insurance companies are justified charging different rates for house insurance depending upon where the homeowner lives. Someone living on the coast in louisiana is likely to pay more than someone living in Central Texas.
Even if it were, it wouldn't justify the resolution
The opponent claims his argument isn't "insurance companies are sexist, therefore we should ban women from driving". Despite this claim, he clearly says "it is not fair ... for men who have been charged more simply because of what they look like... banning women is the most logical solution."
Clearly the opponent is arguing that a sexist practice exists in the insurance industry and the only solution is to ban women from driving. Thus, I was not off base in summarizing the opponent's argument as, "insurance companies are sexist, therefore we should ban women from driving."
I pointed out that the obvious solution to this problem would be to change the way insurance companies charge people. The opponent dismisses this by saying, "it is not fair to just treat men and women equally from now on because that isn't fair on men...who have been charged more." This seems to indicate that simply changing charging practices doesn't make up for the past discrimination.
If we are to assume that is true, it follows that neither will banning women from driving "make up for" past discrimination. The discrimination (in the opponent's argument) has already occurred and can never unoccur. There is no way to undue what has already happened. Thus, the opponent's argument that charging equal rates "doesn't make up for past crime" is a red herring; something that applies to any solution to this problem.
As such, my point stands that (if insurance companies were sexist), there are other ways of dealing with the problem that actually fix it, rather than simply addressing one symptom of it.
The opponent's case is dismantled whichever way you want to look at it.
If you assume insurance companies are sexist, then the resolution doesn't actually fix the problem; it only fixes one symptom of the problem.
If you assume insurance companies aren't sexist (as the evidence heavily indicates), then the opponent's argument doesn't even have a basis to begin with.
Either way, we clearly should not ban women from driving.
1. Women are better drivers than men.
Because the opponent complained about the subjective nature of the term "better", I decided to drop the "better" argument and retain my "safer" argument. The opponent has failed to combat the idea that women are safer drivers than men, giving this argument to me.
2. It isn't fair to disallow women from driving.
The opponent's argument here essentially comes down to "two wrongs make a right". In other words, since (according to him) men are discriminated against by paying higher premiums than women and this is unfair, we should ban women from driving, the "undoing" the unfairness.
Most adults understand that two wrongs never make a right. If someone steals your car, you are not justified in stealing their motorcycle. Both events are crimes and both events are punishable by law. Similarly, even if insurance rates were unfair, it is not ok to do something unfair to women. Retributive justice has no justification and certainly isn't a part of US law.
The opponent asks, "Would you rather be banned from buying and wearing lipstick, or have to pay more for lipstick because you are a man?" What he fails to realize is that this scenario doesn't adequately relate to the issue at hand.
There is no justification for having men pay more for lipstick; there is no monetary or logical reason for this. Compare this to driving, in which men are (according to the data) more likely to get into an accident.
Additionally, let's suppose that a company begins charging men more for lipstick than women. The government can do one of two things: It can either force this company to charge the same product rates for men and women, or it can ban lipstick alltogether. Clearly the correct action is the former, since it solves the problem: businesses will no longer be able to charge men a different rate than women for any product. The latter action banning lipstick a) makes it impossible for both men and women to wear lipstick and b) doesn't solve the problem, since the company could easily begin charging different rates for other products.
3. Slippery Slope
I dropped this. (Intentionally.)
4. Women need to drive
The opponent's argument that "women aren't burdened because they can get a taxi/bus/etc." is exactly like saying we should ban lawnmowers. After all, it doesn't present a burden because people can still use scissors to cut their lawn.
Obviously, forcing someone to use a less convenient form of transportation places a burden on them.
Regarding the economic impact, the opponent downplays this, saying that my "200,000" number is small and irrelevant.
Let's remember that I mentioned a whole host of jobs and that the 200,000 figure was simply the number of women in the individual profession of 18-wheeler driving. Let's do some math:
Let N be the percentage of women in a given job. Let's first look at how many work in the following jobs which require driving:
1. Taxi Drivers - 230,000
2. Bus Drivers - 660,000
3. 18-Wheeler Drivers - 200,000
4. Delivery Truck - 1.3 million
5. Pilots - 119,000
6. 'Material Moving' - 3.7 million
Total: 6,209,000 jobs
The amount of women lost in these jobs is equal to 6,209,000 * N.
If we taken an extremely low estimate, N = 10%, we find that we've lost over 620,000 jobs -- a significant amount of job loss.
If we look at a more realistic percentage, 30%, we find that we've lost 1.87 million jobs.
In the best case scenario, we've lost over half a million jobs and in the realistic scenario we've lost nearly 2 million. This qualifies as damaging to the economy in any sense.
I've proven that insurance companies aren't sexist, that even if they were the resolution couldn't be supported, and that banning women from driving is unfair and significantly damaging to the economy, leading to job losses of nearly 2 million.
It is absolutely clear that women should not be banned from driving. Vote Pro.
1 - http://www.bls.gov...;
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SegBeg 2 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I vote for Pro because Con's whole argument seems to be based on opinion rather than facts but tries to add facts in to make it seem more objective. I see no subjective arguments in Pro's. I found neither of their sources reliable seeing as they come from bias websites such as DailyMail and Telegraph. Con seems to think that getting rid of a "sexist" situation would be to make another sexist situation. Spelling and grammar is a tie as they both had good spelling and grammar. Conduct to Pro because Con says "stupid feminists" which is an insult to feminists and maybe to others who are read this debate. I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.