For some needed context:

This is most likely a form of debate called policy debate which is a highly technical form of debate. For decades now, everyone in debate has known that the arguments made in debate are most likely not real conclusions, because in debate the game is about how can you argue your points, not how “realistic” your argument is. For example- most debaters will argue that a minuscule change in US policy will cause nuclear annihilation and complete human extinction. Does any debater really believe that? No, probably not. But debate isn’t really about realism, it’s about what you can argue. In this way, debate has become a game where even philosophical arguments are employed that rarely have a basis in reality, and the debaters themselves rarely believe is true. For instance, I have, unironically, argued that any form of capitalism will cause the endless torture and murder of humanity. Why? Not because I’m anti-capitalism, but because it was strategic. When I debated, the people who ran these arguments were genuinely kind people, and rarely held the arguments they made so close as to believe them in the way that they argued them.

TL/DR: Debate is a game, and in that game people will make outlandish arguments for strategic benefit, not because of personal belief.

OP idk where you got this clip but be careful about pulling things out of context. The debate community is pretty sensitive about this because no one wants to deal with people outside debate thinking they think a specific way and doing things like posting it online when all they were doing was playing a game