I already explained the problem with this argument: it'd always apply (either you're calling victims liars, or you're calling innocent people rapists) unless your estimate of the percentage was exactly correct.

Yes, and so if I make assertions about the rate then I should have good confidence that the figures I'm quoting are accurate representations of reality. Basically nobody with any experience of the topic has confidence that probably closer to 50% of rape reports are false. Except, it seems, Ted.

No, he did NOT make any such claims about all possible cases which match "both are drunk"

I don't think the evidence agrees with you:

Now, actually, the way the law works is that not only does the being raped be not able to give consent, but that the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent.

He clearly states that someone must know that the other person is unable to give legal consent before it's rape.

So if both Alice and Bob were drunk, there's no rape that has taken place

He then proceeds to give an example of where both parties are drunk enough to be unable to know that consent hasn't been given, and claims that it's therefore not rape. His argument isn't based on symmetry. His argument is based entirely on the claim that the law says you have to be aware that consent hasn't been granted. You're reading things into Ted's writing that aren't actually present or implied.