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

If you haven't read Foucault, critical literature on Foucault, and all of Con's sources, the K is incomprehensible. What if you read Foucault, the critical literature, and Con's sources? The K is still incomprehensible, because it rests on a profoundly convoluted misinterpretation and misapplication of Foucault.First, Con leaves critical terms undefined. For example, "biopower," "governmentality," "subjectification," and "subjectivation." These terms aren't in the dictionary, so to understand what Con is saying, you'll need to do your own research. This is particularly confusing because words like "subjectification" and "subjectivation" sound similar but mean the opposite. And if you do your own research, you'll also learn that Con misuses the terms. [3] This misuse adds to the confusion.Second, Con's quotes are taken out-of-context, so it's impossible to understand their meaning unless you go to the source itself. Of course, if you decide to read the sources, you'll discover that what Con says his sources say and what Con's sources actually say are two completely different things. This also adds to the confusion.Con says he should be allowed to write as obscurely as he wants. That's like saying he should be allowed to write in French, except you'll probably find French words in the dictionary. Con says he gets to do this because there aren't any sources for his side. Even if that's true, the argument fails because Con's K is entirely analytic; it requires no sources.Foucault (who is Con's own authority) calls Con's rhetoric a form of "terrorism" (obscurantisme terroriste). This isn't fair to voters. In a debate, it's important to treat voters and your opponent fairly. That means defining obscure terms (especially terms that aren't in the dictionary), translating unnecessarily convoluted language into plain English, and ensuring that sources are represented truthfully. Con fails these basic notions of fairness. As a result, Con creates insurmountable confusion about what he's arguing. For all these reasons, and to send a strong message against the use of obscurantist terrorism, you should vote Pro.--The K itself is nonsense. Con says "biopower" existed before "sexism" (i.e. before the 18th century). But Foucault defines "biopower" as a modern form of power that emerged in the 18th century. [2] And all of Con's sources use Foucault's definition. So Con's definition conflicts with Foucault and Con's own sources.Con says marketing inherently leads to neoliberalism. But using market values doesn't inherently preclude you from using other values too, so Con's argument is nonsense. Moreover, marketing has existed for thousands of years while neoliberalism is a modern form of government that emerged in the 20th century (see Hamann for a genealogy of neoliberalism). As such, there's no inherent link between the two.Con says "reliance on market values is a direct link to state control over our lives." But Hamann says the opposite: "neoliberal governmentality seeks to minimize state power as much as possible." That's a direct quote from Hamann. Con probably misinterprets Hamann because the word "governmentality" (also coined by Foucault) is a critical term that doesn't refer to "government control"; it refers to individual/collective conduct unrelated to the state (i.e. the opposite of "government control").Con says date rape protection tools are contraception. I don't see how date rape protection tools for men are contraception. As a voter, you'll need to decide whether these tools are contraception when used in the context of men. I argue that they're not because men can't get pregnant. Male rape isn't a reproductive act; rather, it's an act of violence and power. So, if anything, date rape protection tools for men are a way to resist biopower (i.e. a way to protect your body against someone else's attempt to exert power over it).Con says "the affirmative is thrusting itself at us and saying 'use this to not get raped.'" This is untrue. I am arguing that the lack of tools for men is sexist. I'm not saying men should use date rape protection tools. I'm not advocating any specific action about date rape protection tools. I'm saying you should feel disappointment over the fact that sexism still exists in our society. There's a difference between an act of advocacy and an act of regret. The act of regret is an act of disappointment, not an act of advocacy. And the disappointment is over the sexism perpetuated by the idea that men don't need protection but women do. Note that Con dropped that argument, so extend the idea that the lack of protection tools for men perpetuates the idea that men don't need protection but women do; and extend the fact that this idea is sexist.Con says "biopower gives the state the power ... to exterminate all life at their whim."Con offers nothing close to enough justification for this sweeping statement. Also, remember, the power to exterminate life is a form of sovereign power exercised by the state, not a form of biopower exercised by doctors and scientists.The K is so absurd that it suggests every attempt to stop an epidemic of AIDS in Africa must be analyzed as a form of biopower that somehow gives the state power to exterminate life at their whim. The reality is much different. The state has the power to exterminate life at their whim, regardless of biopower or neoliberalism. The state alone possesses that power, not doctors, not scientists, not priests. The important thing here is distinguishing the state - an actor who exercises sovereign power - from doctors and scientists, who exercise biopower. There's an important distinction here; you should reject the K to ensure this important distinction is recognized in the context of critical thought. Again, don't let Con misapply Foucault or his own sources.Con extends his "bare life" argument without actually addressing my response. I argued that "bare life" is not promoted by "biopower." Con drops the argument entirely, so don't let him address it in the final round where I won't be able to respond. Con says the Nazis prove. Not so. Foucault called the Nazis a "paroxysmal development," a "society which has generalized biopower in an absolute sense, but which has also generalized the sovereign right to kill anyone, meaning not only other people but also its own peope, a coincidence between a generalized biopower and a dictatorship that was at once absolute and retransmitted throughout the entire social body." [3] In other words, the holocaust wasn't caused by biopower; it was caused by a "coincidence" between "generalized biopower" and "absolute dictatorship." As such, "the path to the death camps was dependent upon a host of other historical, moral, political, and technical conditions. Holocaust is neither exemplary of thanato-politics, nor the hidden dark truth of biopower." [3]This means you should reject sovereign power, not biopower. You should reject excessive state power over life, not medicine, science, and contraception. Con offers no explanation as to how regret over the lack of protection tools for men perpetuates sexism; the argument is nonsense. King says certain medical/scientific discourses promote sexism and others deconstruct sexism; biopower has both positive and negative effects on sexism. Thus, King argues against anti-abortion rhetoric, while arguing that abortion (as a form of biopower) gives women control over their bodies, which in turn is a way to resist sexism. The takeaway from King is that biopower is good/bad depending on the specific medical/scientific discourse at issue. The circumstances surrounding any operation of biopower determines whether biopower is good/bad; biopower, like any operation of power, is inherently neutral.Ironically, Con says the requirement for a gender-specific analysis is "bull," but that's what Con's own source (King) requires. King attacks Foucault's analysis of power (which underlies Con's entire K), because it fails to take into account gender as a technology of power. Con's K (including all of Con's sources except King) fails to take into account gender in its analysis of biopower. This links Con's K to sexism. Con only attacks the links to my kritik, so the impacts and alternative are fully extended. As long as you buy my argument that Con's argument fails to take into account gender in its analysis of biopower, you can negate Con's K on the basis of my kritik.Con says he's not subject to that criticism because he's using King, but the criticism is aimed at the rest of Con's sources and argument (particularly the link and Con's other impacts). Notice that Con's entire argument never analyzes the way gender operates as a technology of power. In fact, Con says protection tools are contraception because he's not distinguishing between men/women; he's not distinguishing effects of context. These distinctions are important; don't let Con obscure them.Also, Con states: "there's always been patriarchal control over female bodies... [but] biopower goes further back than that." This type of statement of incomprehensible. How can biopower go further back than something that's always existed? It's nonsense. You should absolutely punish Con for his completely incomprehensible rhetoric.Re: the alt - First, biopower isn't what gives the state control over populations; biopower operates independently of the state (see Hamann, [2], and [3])Second, Foucault argued that power is constitutive of our very being. [2] [3] As such, you can't actually reject biopower as a form of power; you can only reject specific instances of biopower. [2] [3] But when you reject local instances of biopower, you inherently create a new operation of biopower (e.g. prohibiting abortion vs abortion clinics; both are diametrically opposed operations of biopower).For all the reasons above, you should negate Con's K and affirm the resolution.Sources:[3] http://www.lse.ac.uk...