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

On the obscurity:Extend my first response that says that the role of the ballot (i.e. who you vote for) is to vote for the better debater who does the better job debating. This poses exactly zero limitations on what arguments I can run and can't run. His only response to this is that it's ridiculous and that it allows me to do things like write my arguments in french. First, pourquoi cela même importance? Second, so what? He doesn't contest the reason I give to prefer this role of the ballot meaning that without this interpretation of how voting and debating works then there's no safe-guards to protect debaters against blatant votebombing based on previous beliefs. This means there's no violation of fairness. Then, extend the second response that there's exactly zero substantive literature out there that I can use to craft arguments. This means that the only argument ground available to me is kritical literature, which he is trying to deny me access to. His only response to this is that my argument is analytic, therefore doesn't require sources, but this doesn't make any kind of sense, even analytical arguments require warrants to them. And, he never responds to the argument I make that if we buy his obscureness argument then there becomes exactly zero discussion in the debate about things like date rape and sexism. This means that only through negating can we get any kind of link to fairness at all. Not to mention how obscure can I really be if he's making claims that I'm misinterpreting Foucault...On the K:This debate is pretty simple. FT spends all his time saying that I'm misinterpreting what I'm citing from without actually really responding to any of the arguments I'm actually making. Whether or not my arguments meet his interpretation of Foucault seems to miss the point of I'm still making an argument in the first place. But moreover, what my cards are actually saying and what FT says my cards are saying are kind of strange considering he pulls text that's outside of what I'm actually citing in my cards. His responses have all been about what he believes my arguments should be saying rather than what my cards are explicitly talking about. So, extend Hamann. Hamann talks about how the government uses the weighing of different things in an economic calculus as a way to control us and to exercise power over us. Therefore by wanting to "market" male rape protection as per the resolution, affirming links into the K. Even if there are other values we can use, the resolution is specific to market values by use of the word "marketed", meaning that in this debate thse market values are what we're looking at. I also don't know where he came up with that quote, because that's nowhere in the card I read. This means that, for sure, he links into the K.And, I'm kicking the contraception link.Then, extend Bernauer. Bernauer is talking about how giving the state control over our lives gives the state the ability and the authority to exterminate all life at their whim. FT's only response is that I don't give any warrant for this, but that's literally straight out of the text of Bernauer. And absurd =/= wrong. He needs to actually be responding with reasons why my argument is false or why his argument should be preferred. He's doing neither.Then, extend Braidotti. Giving the state complete control over our bodies and lives nullifies any value that our lives have. His response of why biopower doesn't lead to bare life is literally within the card itself, so I didn't even need to respond. And I already covered on the part of how biopower doesn't actually improve the value of our lives with the Perry evidence. There was no drop. Then, extend King. King talks about how state control over our lives is the root cause of sexism and the oppression of women. It doesn't really matter when sexism came about and when the state came about insofar as King is warranting that in today, in the status quo, the state is the entity perpetuating sexism. There's no response to the warrants of King from FT. His most recent "no reason why regret = sexism" is just a conflated misrepresentation of the argument. And, I really don't understand the whole gender-specific analysis "counter-K" when the entire text of the King evidence is gender-specific. So I meet in the first place...But moreover, his response doesn't actually respond to why I called it bull. He never outlines where in what I cited it calls for what he says it does (hint hint it doesn't), nor does he say that I'm actually being less sexist by refusing to outline genders and addressing people as individuals and humans rather than by their gender, thus eliminating possible sexism from the discussion. His entire argument here is ridiculous. And, extend Perry. Perry is FT's game over mistake. Perry explicitly points out how giving the state control over our bodies and our choices leads to harsher forms of control which is a direct internal link from Hamann to the impacts. This is the biggest mistake in the round because it goes entirely dropped. There wasn't a single response to Perry whatsoever.This means that because Perry was dropped, FT concedes the internal link from Hamann to the impacts. There's no way that biopower can be beneficial. And I'm winning the impact debate.Then, extend Gabardi. Gabardi is the alt that by rejecting the affirmative is the only way to escape the impacts and that each individual act of resistence is key. His first response is literally what I'm arguing. Biopower is state control.His second response has literally zero warrant behind it. Rejecting the state doesn't mean you create a new state. You just say f*ck the current system. Conclusion:I'm winning the link debate via Hamann. The resolution inherently links him to biopower.I'm winning the impact debate and Perry ensures that the link and impact debate holds.And the alt debate is being won by me.And the obscureness debate is pointless and I'm winning it anyway.