This house regrets the lack of date rape protection tools marketed to men

There’s two problems with Con’s argument. First, Con’s argument is incomprehensible. The language Con uses alienates the vast majority of people. I’ve read Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and The History of Sexuality, v. I and II, and lots of critical literature on Foucault, and wrote a 20 page paper on Foucault, specifically on the relationship between liberalism and biopower, and I still have no clue what the fvck Con’s talking about. And if I feel that way, that means other people reading this debate feel that way too.The main problem is that Con’s sources use intentionally obscure/inflated language to make their theories seem profound. On top of that, Con fails to define key terms like biopower and neoliberal governmentality, so it's impossible to know how Con's interpreting/using these terms. The other problem is that Con’s quotes are taken completely out-of-context, so that any meaning they had in context is totally lost. Yet another problem is that Con’s quotes rest on vague assumptions that make deciphering Con's points nearly impossible. The result is an incomprehensible argument.Ironically, Foucault coined a phrase to describe Con’s mode of argument: “obscurantisme terroriste” (terrorism of obscurantism). Foucault describes it like this:Someone writes so obscurely that you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part. [1]This is precisely how I feel when I read Con's argument. Of course, when I attack Con's argument, he'll be able to say I’m wrong because I misunderstood him. This makes any criticism or debate impossible. It shuts down discussion about important topics like date rape and sexism, which in turn makes any sort of radical politics impossible by alienating (and silencing) those who can’t understand Con’s obscure/inflated language. For that reason alone, you can vote Pro.Second, Con’s K is bullsh!t. Even giving it the most generous interpretation possible, Con's K still rests on a profound misunderstanding and misapplication of Foucault. In particular, Con mistakes the nature of biopower, neoliberalism, social change, date rape, and sexism. I'll attack the K step-by-step to make sure voters understand exactly what’s happening.The first step in Con's K is the idea that marketing inherently imposes "neoliberalism," which in turn perpetuates "biopower." Con's source defines "neoliberalism" as a system where individuals act solely through market-based values; judgments are never made based on other social values. However, Con offers no reason to believe marketing inherently excludes all social values but market-based ones. In fact, many goods are priced below cost precisely because of social or ethical considerations. For example, someone might price date rape protection tools below cost because they think rape is a profound violation of human dignity. From a seller or buyer's perspective, it's possible to make judgments (about what to sell or buy) based not only on market considerations but also social or ethical considerations. This shows that marketing doesn't inherently impose neoliberalism.Con also misunderstands what "biopower" is. The term refers to a modern form of power that "exerts a positive influence on life, endeavours to administer, optimize, and multiply it.” [2] In The History of Sexuality, Foucault distinguishes biopower from classical sovereign power (power to "take life"), which involved seizing things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself. Foucault explains that biopower didn't actually emerge until sometime around the 18th century, with the creation of new biological sciences, medical institutions, legal doctrines, and so on. Foucault also notes, in Governmentality, that the modern sovereign state first used biopower as a method to care for individuals and populations. From the beginning, its purpose was the welfare of the individual and the entire population, the increase of their wealth, their loongevity, their health, and their happiness. Notably, all of modern medicine, all of modern biology, the sequencing of the Human Genome, condoms—all of it is an expression of biopower.The takeaway here is that marketing has existed for thousands of years before the 18th century, so there's no inherent link bewteen marketing and biopower. Con's interpretation of biopower conflicts with Foucault, history, and logic. This disconnect between "marketing" and "biopower" dooms Con's argument, as it collapses any link between Con's K and the resolution. In fact, Con can't even show an inherent connection between neoliberalism and biopower (e.g. note that Con's source on neoliberalism never even mentions the word "biopower").Con's discussion re: contraception is irrelevant. Although contraception is arguably an expression of biopower, date rape protection tools aren't contraception; they're tools to prevent a completely non-reproductive act. The violence of male rape isn't a form of population control or a way to enhance male reproductive capabilities. Remember, men can't get pregnant. Furthermore, as I explained in R1, the issue in this debate is sexism/fairness/justice, not an economic calculus related to population control or biopower. The purpose and effect of marketing date rape protection tools to men is combatting sexism and rape, not controlling bodies. The next step in Con's K is impacts: (1) "biopower will destroy the planet," (2) "biopower leads to barelife," and (3) "sexism derives from biopower." These impacts also mistake the nature of biopower. (1) The atom bomb isn't a result of biopower. If anything, the atom bomb is a form of classical sovereign power (i.e. the power to "take life"). Remember, the purpose of biopower isn't to destroy life or the planet; it's to promote and optimize life. Unfortunately, I'm unable to see Con's quote (Bernhauer) in context, so I'm unable to figure out exactly what Con's argument is. That said, it evidences yet another misundersatnding of biopower. Besides, the idea that "marketing" will destroy the planet is provably false. Individuals have been marketing things for thousands of years, and the planet is fine. In the past century, population has grown, life expectancy has increased, sexism/racism is at an all-time low, violence has decreased, and society is relatively stable. The effects of biopower have been net positive.(2) The concept of "bare life" comes from Giorgio Agamben (another philosopher). Foucault's notion of "biopower" has nothing to do with Agamben's notion of "bare life." In fact, the same way that biopower is the opposite of sovereign power, its concept of life is the opposite of bare life. Remember, biopower multiplies and optimizes life, and it does so by multiplying and optimizing different forms of life. The result of biopower is a multiplicity of life, from the artistic life to hte intellectual life, the farmer to the politician, each and every type of life promoted by biopower. Instead of bare life, the life of biopower is a "plenitude of life," as Foucault puts it. [2] [Also note that Con's source relates "bare life" to "sovereign power," not to "biopower."](3) Sexism existed long before the emergence of biopower, so Con's idea that sexism "derives" from biopower simply mistakes the nature of biopower. Con's source says nothing about sexism deriving from biopower. In fact, Con's source uses the word "biopower" once, and it's to critique Foucault's analysis of biopower as sexist! It states: "treating the body 'as one' is not viable; [Foucault's] concept of power cries out for gender specific analysis and in that analysis gender needs to be acknowledged as a technology of the body in its own right." The article continues: "[Foucault] is not really treating the body 'as one' but as male and no distinction is necessary when deadling with the 'genderless' body of man - the essential human subject. [Foucault] seems to fall into the very modes of thought he sought to challenge."So, apply this against Con: reject the K because its analysis of power lacks gender specificity, which promotes sexism. This is a kritik of Con's K: Foucault's analysis of power links to sexism, the impact of sexism is the oppression of men and women who don't comply with the required gender norms, and the alt is rejecting Foucault's analysis of power in favor of a gender specific analysis, because only this personal rejection can create an ethical subject that simultaneously resists sexism and disciplinary power. When you apply a gender specific analysis of power, you uncover the sexist power structures underlying the lack of date rape protection tools marketed to men. The lack of date rape protection tools perpetuates a sexist discourse that assumes men don't need protection but women do. This imposes a hegemonic patriachal oppression of men and women. Only by rejecting Foucault, and regretting the lack of date rape protection tools marketed to men, can you resist hegemonic patriarchal control. This negates Con's K and affirms the resolution.At this point, there's nothing left of Con's K, but I'll address the alt to be thorough. I have three criticisms. One, disciplinary power isn't the same as biopower, so that's just another example of Con's incomprehensible language (discipline is the power to make individuals behave; biopower is the power to produce life). Two, you can't reject any reigning power structure; that's not how power works. Foucault's great insight is that reform is constitutive of power - prison reform is part of prison discourse, not against it; medical reform is part of medical discourse, not against it. You can't reject biopower because biopower flows through any attempt to reject it. And three, rejecting biopower means rejecting all medicine and science, which is absurd. Sources:1. http://www.critical-theory.com...2. Foucault, The History of Sexuality, and Governmentality