"They think that logic is apart of the oppressive patriachy"
100% this professor.
His argument is incredibly basic. It is not tailored to the specfic debate (about co-operation in space) - "Evidence is only limited to what I have experienced" applies to any argument ever. It is a weak, pathetic argument exactly because of the fact that it has universal application. He is guiding his students to the laziest, least interesting blanket argument rather than engaging with the question posed - the whole purpose of a debate. It is an interesting discussion topic in the context of philosophy, but applying to real-world issues is lazy, illogical and inherently unconvincing.
The funniest thing though is his incorporation of "whiteness" into the argument. It is literally irrelevant. It does not make the argument any more persuasive, in fact, if anything, it makes it much weaker. No experience = no evidence goes to the philosophical thinking of what knowledge is. Justifying this as a method of white control does not make that point any stronger, it just adds another unnecessary premise that exposes the argument to more counters. The purpose of a debate is to win: "Space doesn't exist because I haven't seen it" is only weakened by adding "Space doesn't exist because I haven't seen it, and there exists a grand white conspiracy to modify reality through asserting their experiences on others".
His conception of whiteness literally can not succeed in the context of a real argument, so he takes this opportunity - of abandoning all logic - to create a platform to argue his perception of whiteness. You can use this reduction of logic to argue literally anything.
This professor is using a debate - purposed to enrich, develop and engage students - to make himself feel good about his racist rhetoric. He is disrespecting the purpose and fulfilment of his students by reducing the process. Its the equivalent of playing basketball with friends - losing - and arguing you didn't lose because "I never agreed on the rules".