The Instigator
FourTrouble
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/20/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,126 times Debate No: 79912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

FourTrouble

Pro

You get a call one day from a girl who’s stood you up three times. She says she’s back from out of town and asks if you’d like to get a drink on Saturday, and since you’ve never passed a stove you didn’t touch, plans are made. You meet at a bar. To your surprise, this time she shows up. You order a beer, start making small talk, seems like everything’s going well. You get up to pee, and when you get back, she’s ordered shots. She’s got a sly smirk on her face, a sly smirk you didn't make much of at the time, but that you'll remember until your dying day. You down the shot in one gulp and it tastes like sh!t.

“What is this?”

She responds, “G.”

You think she’s talking about gin, and you don't know better because you've never had gin before. Of course, she’s actually talking about GHB, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, commonly known as a date rape drug. A couple drinks later, the room is doing Inception things and you’re not sure what the fvck is going on. She takes you back to her place, semi-conscious, and once you’re alone, she forces more druggings down your lips. The whole night is a blur but you’ll never forget the moment she starts anally penetrating you – you’ve never done that before – and you’ve never felt so humiliated in your entire life. She knows what’s she’s doing, stimulates you in all the right places to get you hard, even though you want nothing more than for her to stop. Over the course of the night, you lose count of the times she rapes you. You’re sobbing and kicking and punching but you’re too weak to get her off you, and she doesn’t care – it’s all some sick roleplay in her mind.

When it ends, you think about going to the police. But you don't, because what if all your bros find out you were raped by some chick? You don’t think you can handle the humiliation, and you don't think the police will even believe you, and you hate yourself and your life, and you spend the next 5 years depressed, scared to have sex, getting panic attacks anytime you meet a girl in a bar, and constantly ideating suicide.

This debate is about trying to help men protect themselves from date rape. It's also a debate about sexism, because date rape protection tools are marketed towards women but not men, and that's a huge problem because male date rape is a very real thing.

I’m going to make two arguments. First, I’ll argue that the lack of date rape protection tools for men violates basic notions of fairness or justice. To make this argument, I’ll show that the lack of tools for men perpetuates (and is predicated on) sexist gender stereotypes. Second, I’ll argue that the lack of date rape protection tools for men is a net harm to society. Each argument affirms independently. The former affirms even if the lack of date rape protection tools is a net benefit to society, while the latter affirms even if the lack of tools is fair and just.


(1)



Male rape is more common than most poeple think. It's so common that the Justice Department recently updated its definition of rape to include men. http://www.justice.gov...

The definition update was in response to a study by the Justice Department that found 1 in 33 men have experienced “a completed or attempted rape.” https://www.ncjrs.gov...

Another study found that 12.9% of men are sexually assaulted at least once during their lifetime. This same study also found that male victims were 3.4 times more likely to be depressed and 2.4 times more likely to ideate suicide. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The male rape problem extends to date rape. Men are increasingly getting date raped. This is especially a problem in the gay community, which is known for its promiscuous hookup culture. Gay men are date raping other gay men, the same way the straight men date rape women. But the problem isn't limited to the gay community; men are getting date raped by women too.

Now, there's a few date rape protection tools on the market, but they're marketed exclusively (or at least almost exclusively) towards women. For example, one of the tools is a nail polish that changes colors when it comes into contact with date rape drugs. A girl can just put her finger in the drink to check it for drugs.

Developing and marketing date rape protection tools to women but not men is sexist. Marketing date rape protection tools exclusively to women sends a message that men aren't susceptible to date rape - and that messge is predicated on traditional (read: sexist) gender stereotypes. In this traditional worldview, men aren't victims of rape because women are smaller and weaker than me. Men aren't victims of rape because women aren't sexual in the same ways as men; they're not aggressors. The reality is differnet. Lots of men don't comply with these traditional gender roles. Lots of men are smaller/weaker than lots of women. Lots of men are feminine and lots of women are masculine.

The lack of date rape protection tools for men doesn't just discriminate against straight men who don't comply with traditional gender roles - it also discriminates against gay men. The entire gay community is excluded from the category of rape - they're treated like non-entities.

As such, marketing protection tools to women but not men is unfair to men and it's unjust - and it perpetuates sexist gender norms and contributes to homophobia.

(2)

The lack of date rape protection tools for men is also a net harm to society. This is because date rape protection tools will stop some rapes from happening. It will help some men protect themselves from date rape, both in a straight context and a gay context, and these men will benefit immensely by never being raped. It makes date rape harder to perpetrate.

What are the harms of marketing date rape protection tools to men? None. What are the benefits? Men get access to protection, which in turns lowers the rate of successful date rapes against men. The other benefit is that it sends a message to men that it's okay for them to be a victim of date rape - that it's not an affront to their masculinity. This will help men report date rape more, because they won't feel like it's something completely unaccepted by society. Sending a message that men can and are raped, and that men can and should seek help (i.e. from date rape protection tools, or from the police after a rape) is a massive benefit to men who are actually raped. These men won't get as depressed, they won't ideate suicide, and so on. Remember, men who are raped are more likely to be depressed and ideate suicide than women. Marketing date rape protection tools may lower that discrepancy by helping men get less depressed.

What are the harms of not marketing date rape protection tools to men? It communicates a message that men aren't ever victims of rape, which in turn contributes to the depression and suicide ideation experienced by men who are actually raped. It also means lots of men are gonna get date raped who might have prevented the date rape if they (a) knew male date rape was a thing, and (b) had bought protection tools to help them prevent date rape. What are the benefits of not marketing date rape protection tools to men? There are no benefits.
Zaradi

Con

To market is defined by Merriam Webster as the act or instance of selling.

A is the link - the aff’s obsession with cost-benefit analysis is a form of knowledge that imposes neoliberal governance on populations. This is the most dangerous form of biopower.

Hamann in 2k9(Trent, St. John’s University, Foucault Studes no 6, Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and Ethics, http://rauli.cbs.dk...)

  • “everyday experiences reflect a neoliberal ethos operative within ... every aspect of our ... lives ... consequences that are dire for many and dangerous for ... all ... the central aim of neoliberal governmentality is the ... production of ... conditions conducive to ... Homo economicus, ... neoliberalism strives to en-sure that individuals are compelled to assume market-based values in all of their judgments ... Neoliberal Homo economicus is a free … atom” of self-interest who is ... responsible for navigating the social realm using rational choice and cost-benefit calculation to the express exclu-sion of all other values and interests. ... His analyses of ”government” ... bring together the government of others ... and the government of ... self ... on ... one hand, the biopolitical governance of populations and, on the other, the work that individu-als perform upon themselves ... the ef-fects of subjectification produced at the level of everyday life through the specifically neoliberal ”conduct of conduct” recommend that we recognize and invent commen-surate forms of critique, ... and ethical subjectivation that constitute resistance to its dangers.”
And, Contraception promotion allows the state to diffuse its control over bodies
Richey, 2004
L.A., Feminist Review, Construction, Control and Family Planning in Tanzania: Some Bodies the Same and Some Bodies Different,
  • “Discourse, ... may be understood as 'all that is written and spoken and all that invites dialogue or conversation' ... Family planning, as a type of 'development' intervention, includes symbolic and material 'cargo' ... the languages, artefacts and practices of family planning, act as an apparatus in creating the 'problem' of population and in structuring the parameters of acceptable solutions. ... the disciplining power of contraceptive technologies does not come from a single, unilateral agenda, but is linked to many different representations of control ... including the capacity of reproductive self-control by women themselves. It is the diffuseness of its power, usually the absence of overt force, yet the ordering mechanisms of bodily governance …”
B is the impacts - The expression of humanist biopower will destroy the planet
Bernauer1990
(James, “Michael Foucault’s Force of Flight: Toward an Ethics of Thought,” pp. 141-142)
  • “What comparison is possible between a sovereign's authority to take a life and a power that, in the interest of protecting a society's quality of life, can plan, as well as develop the means for its implementation, a policy of mutually assured destruction? Such a policy is neither an aberration of the fundamental principles of modern politics nor an abandonment of our age's humanism in favor of a more primitive right to kill ... The bio-political project of administering and optimizing life closes its circle with the production of the Bomb. "The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of a power to guarantee and individuals continued existence …”
And, Biopower leads to barelife – a life worthy of killing
Braidotti 2007
Rosi, Bio-Power and Necro-Politics, Feb. 2007, http://www.springerin.at..., Accessed 7-10-09, AMG
  • “life« or »the rest« after the humanized »bio-logical« wrapping is taken over ... in you which sovereign power can kill: it is the body as disposable matter in the hands of the despotic force of power ... Included as necessarily excluded, »bare life« inscribes fluid vitality at the heart of the mechanisms of capture of the state system. ... this vitality, or »aliveness«, however, is all the more mortal for it. This is linked to Heidegger’s theory of Being as deriving its force from the annihilation of animal life.”
Moreover, Sexism derives from biopower
King 2004
Angela, Journal of International Women’s Studies, The prisoner of gender: Foucault and the disciplining of the female body. 3-1-04
  • “Woman as other is inferior but also unknowable, enigmatic and disquieting. She represents that which must be investigated and dissected until her secrets are relinquished. Consequently the female body has been subjected to the scrutinizing gaze of the human sciences far more than the male ... Medical and scientific discourse has confirmed the pathology of female biology and legitimated women's subjugation, prescribing in the past what activities women should engage in, what clothes they should wear to preserve appropriate 'womanliness', their moral obligation to preserve their energy for child birth and so on. ... the processes that I have been relating--i.e. the role of discourse in producing and determining social identity and as a form of social control--are close to Foucault's theoretical heart. ... he succinctly refers to some of these issues in his description of 'the hysterization of women's bodies' ... Feminism has long been preoccupied with theorising how power operates, particularly between the sexes. Like Foucault, many feminists had engaged with Marxism but found its framework fell short …”
C is the alt - Vote negative to reject the disciplinary power/knowledge of the aff-only this personal rejection can create an ethical subject that resists biopolitical control. Each act of micro-resistance is key.
Gabardi in 2k1
(Wayne, Negotiating Postmodernism, pg 77-79)
  • "Foucault identified four ... modes of ethical practice that formed the basis of ... a framework of ethical analysis and a model of freedom ... Ethical substance refers to that aspect ... of ... behavior that is ... the ... focus ... of ... moral conduct ... Ethical work involves the ... methods, and ... techniques by which we change ourselves into an ethical subject. Telos involves ... striving to ... place one’s ... actions within a pattern of conduct. ... these ethical practices inform a conception of self- hood in which a person takes an active role in shaping ... identity, rather than conforming to existing ... systems of power/knowledge. ... the ... reflexive self appropriates practices of conduct from power/knowledge formations without being dependent on their disciplinary codes ... Foucault was able to ... channel ... energy into a relationship where “self-care” and “responsibility for the other” ... enhance the aesthetic drive. ... He states ... freedom is the ontological condition and ... basis of ethics ... power means “relationships of power:’ that resistance and freedom are implicit in power relations, ... “domination” is different from power. It is a situation in which ... relations of power are fixed in such a way that they are perpetually asymmetrical ... the relationship between philosophy and politics is fundamental ... philosophy is charged with the duty of “challenging all phenomena of domination ... Foucault’s idea of freedom as ethical agency involves choosing a life “style” and then integrating specific techniques of self-formation ... The ... context of life stylization ... requires the cultivation of self-discipline and ... struggle to ... resist disciplinary power matrices and carve out a space for self-empowerment and creative choice. ... freedom entails a movement from resistance to ethics to political action. Resistance, ... involves the revolt of the body against the normalizing effects of disciplinary biopower. This critical resistance, ... is channeled into an affirmative ethical project concerned with self-care. The rejection of an imposed identity and a set of norms becomes the impetus for fashioning one’s own ethical code and conduct. The ethical agent becomes a political actor in joining struggles that seek to alter power relations ... The battle is joined at the local and microlevels by countering norms with norms and techniques with techniques. ... if, ... ours is a time of cultural postmodernization, ... and of the pervasive effects of information and mass media in our Lives, then quality of life ... issues should take ... on a greater importance in our daily social interactions, ... ethical considerations, and political concerns. ... Foucault’s idea of freedom as an aesthetic-ethical-political practice of lifestyle determination takes on greater significance. It is both a product of our late modern/postmodern transition and a new mode of being and normative guide in negotiating this condition."
This negates in a number of ways:
  • a) Marketing something implies an economic calculus, which imposes a neoliberal control over the population, inherently linking the affirmative to biopower. The K negates the topic by saying that the marketing things is inherently harmful and we ought to reject the current system.
  • b) The aff’s desire for sexual contraceptive devices for men is a way for the state to control the body and expand its biopolitical influence further. Only by negating can we reject biopower.
  • c) This turns internal link of the affirmative case that by linking into biopower, they re-create and re-intrench the same system that created sexism. This means that they recreate the same sexism they try to fight. Only negating solves the root causes of sexism.
  • d) The K outweighs the AC. Even if he argues that the harms coming from male rape is bad, extinction and destruction of human worth outweigh.
Debate Round No. 1
FourTrouble

Pro

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
Zaradi

Con

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


  1. 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.

  2. 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


  1. Pretty sure if things like condoms count as contraceptives, then this would qualify as well,

  2. 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

  1. I meet this requirement. King uses gender specific wording when talking about the female body.

  2. 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.
Debate Round No. 2
FourTrouble

Pro

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...
Zaradi

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I promise, I'm working on this guys. I'll have a vote up this weekend.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
30 seconds ROFL
Posted by ShabShoral 1 year ago
ShabShoral
Zaradi, did you seriously just copy/paste a chunk of Foucault as your argument? I don't see how that could ever be an actually good tactic... Foucault is tedious to read in book form, but at least then you can kind of understand him. You can't portray his ideas in a single paragraph and expect voters to have any idea of what it means.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
F*ck forgot the source:

[1] - http://www.nbcnews.com...
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
The "obscurantisme terroriste" one.

Here is CTMU:
http://www.debate.org...
Roy actually ran something similar to you. "Argument from Mumbo Jumbo".
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
Which argument? I don't know what CTMU is btw.
Posted by Romanii 1 year ago
Romanii
FT, you should debate dylancatlow on CTMU and run this argument.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
So, I passed out last night while writing up the first half, but I'm finishing this now, and I think you're gonna like the direction I'm taking.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
Sounds like the best time to be writing up responses to Foucault. I approve.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
I got this. A bottle of wine in, I'm ready to start writing my round up.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
FourTroubleZaradi
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/society/topic/75287/
Vote Placed by larztheloser 1 year ago
larztheloser
FourTroubleZaradi
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Debate is about being persuasive, and being understood is a precondition for that. Further I did accept pro's contention that con didn't do enough to make his case particularly understandable. Pro must also be commended for his additional rebuttals despite this, though I think on substance the argumentation on the kritik was pretty even. I further dispute there was no other way con could have realistically argued this.. The BOP, however, was on pro. Pro's case, with narrative backing and incredible structure, was well supported with analysis. Con never directly linked his case to this material, but it fell out of the debate anyway. I further felt like the kritik didn't progress much as the debate wore on. Having only passing knowledge of Foucault, I felt that if anything, pro was stronger only in that he was more understandable and had a tendency to quote less. More than that, however, pro wins because I felt the relatively even argumentation on the kritik did not outweigh the bop.