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

Starting with the obscureness stuff. First, don’t punish me for being obscure. The role of the ballot is voting for who does the better job debating, which doesn’t constrict me from running obscure arguments and materials in any way. And prefer this role of the ballot because if it isn’t the case then there’s nothing we can do to actually stop people from blindly vote-bombing in favor of their personal beliefs. Second, there’s absolutely zero sources or websites out there that support the Con side. There’s literally nothing I can use to warrant my arguments if I take a standard route to arguing the resolution. Precluding me from running kritikal literature denies me the rest of any possible ground I have to argue the resolution. If you buy his obscureness argument, instead of him just struggling to understand what I’m saying, I won’t be able to say anything. This means we don’t get to discuss anything like date rape and sexism, whereas with the K we at least have a chance if FT can figure out what I’m saying. I control the link to fairness. Moreover, even if he can’t figure out what I’m saying, don’t vote me down for being obscure. It’s not like this debate is the sole place we can discuss date rape and sexism. Now let’s go to the actual debate at hand. Extend Hamann. The reliance on market values is a direct link to state control over our lives and that the aff’s attempt to “market” these date rape protections directly links him to biopower. His attempt to refute this is by saying that people can sell things for below market value, but This is insufficient. If people really believe that the problem is that big of an ethical crisis, why not just offer it for free rather than charging people money to obtain their forms of protection? The desire to make money and participate in these market values still links him. Even if what he’s saying is sufficient to de-link him, no one does it. If anything people are more likely to increase the price of vital medications than decrease them[1]. He also responds by saying that there’s no inherent link between economics and biopower, but the warrants of Hamann are clear that the state uses these market values to alter and control the way we think about what’s around us in our society - the way we look up to people who drive around fancy and expensive cars and look down on people who dress in raggedy clothes and use flip phones instead of the latest smart phone. These are all exemplifications of how the state controls us through market values. The link is there. But, if you don’t buy that link, extend Richey. Contraceptive measures are a way that the state exerts control over our individual lives and bodies. He says this is irrelevant because date rape protection isn’t a contraceptive, but Pretty sure if things like condoms count as contraceptives, then this would qualify as well, Even if it isn’t, the mentality and internal warrant of the link remains untouched. Contraceptives are the state’s way of controlling how we use our bodies and the way our bodies interact with other bodies. The state thrusts condoms at us and says “Use this to not get pregnant.” In the same way, the affirmative is thrusting itself at us and saying “use this to not get raped.” It’s the control over our bodies and our actions that links, which the affirmative doesn’t respond to. So he definitively links to biopower. Let’s look at why he loses the round because of it. Extend Bernauer. Biopower gives the state the power and ability to exterminate all life at their whim and leisure and the ability to develop policies and weapons to do so legally. Rejection of the affirmative is the only way to ensure that we don’t go extinct as a race. His refutation about the atom bomb not being an example of biopower misses the point entirely. Bernauer talks about how biopower gives the state the freedom to commit whatever atrocities upon us that they want to because they have total control over our lives and bodies. With atom bombs and nuclear weapons on their side, the state can exterminate all life with the press of a button. The only way to prevent this from happening is to reject the state and reject biopower, which means we negate the resolution. And, this outweighs affirmative impacts because whether or not male rape is a bad things and needs to be solved back for won’t really matter if we’re all dead. Then, extend Braidotti. Biopower devoids any value within living as merely pawns of the state. This outweighs affirmative impacts because it doesn’t matter if being raped is a really bad things if our lives aren’t even worth living in the first place. And, extend King. The control over the body and the way that we act and the way we live our lives is the root cause of sexism and the control over the female body and the actions that they take. This means that the affirmative case doesn’t actually solve for the harms they’re listing, because by fighting sexism via affirming and linking to biopower, they re-entrench the same framework that allows sexism to thrive in the first place. Only rejection of the affirmative can solve for sexism. His refutation is that sexism came before biopower, so biopower can’t be the cause of sexism. But this doesn’t make any kind of sense. There’s always been patriarchal control over female bodies. The discrimination of them as lesser than men by society and by the state has existed for far longer than the 18th century. Biopower goes further back than that. His second response is that we ought to reject the K because it doesn’t use gender-specific vernacular, but I meet this requirement. King uses gender specific wording when talking about the female body. This requirement is bull. Forcing men and women to identify with either male or female gender identity forces those who don’t meet these identities to take up a state of being that they don’t agree with and does not fit them, which oppresses them. We should allow flexibility in our understanding of gender to include everyone. And, on the idea that biopower is beneficial to society as a whole. Biopower inevitably changes to a much harsher, violent form of biopolitical control. Perry, Assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, 2008 Josh, DePaul Journal of Healthcare law, PARTIAL BIRTH BIOPOLITICS, http://papers.ssrn.com..., Accessed 7-8-09, AMG “it is the use of this political power of regulation over the body politic that is cause for some concern. ... some instances of social benefit can be imagined. However, as contemporary issues of life and death trigger power dynamics between individuals, an administratively-bureaucratized state, and a conservative ideological movement which seeks to regulate the culture via legislation advancing its version of the common good, perhaps it is inevitable that biopower more often gives rise to a more objectionable brand of biopolitics. ... in the realm of reproductive rights one finds increasing attempts by the state to control mechanisms relating to the biological beginnings of life, even as individuals attempt to assert claims to autonomy and rights to self-determination. It is to this particular expression of biopolitics that our discussion now returns.” So, even if things seem nice now, it’s not going to stay this way, and the end result will be far worse than we can imagine. The only way to prevent this future from occurring is to reject biopower now. And, Nazi Germany proves. Things started nice when Hitler came to power with massive boosts to the economy and the rising status of the nation among other global powers. But the end result was the Holocaust and World War II, which were far worse than any of the positives. This means you prefer negative impacts to affirmative impacts because a) things like extinction and loss of the value to living outweigh in terms of magnitude and scope, and b) the affirmative impacts are only the means to the negative impacts. His impacts turn into my impacts, meaning the true end result is the negative. This gives us reason to not want biopower, meaning we reject the affirmative and negate. Which brings us to Gabardi. Extend Gabardi. The alternative to biopower is to reject the affirmative. Only through rejection can we achieve a place where we can actually resist biopolitical control, and that each individual act of resistance is key to escaping biopower. His first response is that disciplinary power isn’t what biopower is, but the links show how biopower allows the state to control populations. His second response is that any attempt to reject biopower inevitably must operate within and through biopower, but this is doesn’t make sense: First, to reject a system means that we leave the binds of the system and adopt different policies and practices that operate outside of the status quo. Just saying that “you can’t operate outside of the existing power, that’s not how power works” doesn’t show that rejecting something means we can’t operate outside of it. I can easily reject my work policies by just not showing up to work, which doesn’t mean I have to operate within my working structure. Second, Gabardi is specific to our resistance functioning by replacing existing norms with new norms, and existing traditions and practices with new policies. This means that the only way to change the power structure to be non-biopolitical and solve for the harms of the K is to negate the resolution, as this functions outside of existing biopolitical norms. And his third response is just saying that it’s absurd, but that doesn’t actually respond to the arguments I’m making. The K is clear that only a rejection of the status quo is sufficient.