♪ ♪ HOST: WELCOME TO "BASIC BLACK."

SOME OF YOU ARE JOINING US ON OUR BROADCAST WHILE OTHERS ARE JOINING US ON OUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS.

I AM PHILIP MARTIN.

MY FRIEND CALLIE CROSSLEY HAS THE NIGHT OFF.

TONIGHT, PUBLIC SPEAKING, DISCOURSE AND DEBATE HISTORICALLY DEBATE WAS ONLY PRACTICED ACADEMICALLY BY THE PRIVILEGED FEW LEAVING MANY STUDENTS OF COLOR DRAMATICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED THAT MANY AFRICAN-AMERICAN SPEAKERS HAVE DELIVERED IMPORTANT SPEAKERS -- IMPORTANT SPEECHES INCLUDING MALCOLM X AND BARBARA JORDAN TO BARACK OBAMA.

NOW, MORE SPEAKERS OF COLOR ARE FOLLOWING IN THEIR LEGACY BY JOINING DEBATE TEAMS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND LEARNING HOW TO USE THEIR VOICES AGAINST SOCIAL INJUSTICES AND YET SOME PUBLIC FORUMS CAN BE UNSAFE SPACES FOR FREE SPEECH.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR SPEAKING OUT?

JOINING US THIS EVENING IS A STUDENT AND POLICY DEBATE OR THE HARBOR DEBATE COUNCIL AND BOSTON'’S CITY COUNCIL AT LARGE AND DR. DION HAWKINS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY AND DIRECTOR OF DEBATE FROM EMERSON COLLEGE.

WELCOME, FOLKS.

LET'’S GET INTO THIS.

THIS NOTION OF DEBATE IS SOMETHING I THINK ALL OF US -- IT HAS AFFECTED ALL OF OUR LIVES TO A GREAT DEGREE BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE.

WHAT IS THE BOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE?

>> WE ARE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND WE HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE 2005.

WE ARE ONE OF 22 URBAN BAIT LEADS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND THEY WERE FOUNDED BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED.

BAIT WAS AN ACTIVITY LARGELY RESERVED FOR PRIVILEGED PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE AND MEN.

THESE LEAGUES WERE STARTED SO YOUNG PEOPLE IN CITIES WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS TO POLICY DEBATE.

WE WORK WITH STUDENTS ACROSS SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES IN BOSTON TO ENGAGE IN POLICY DEBATE AND COMPETE MONTHLY.

THEY ARE PRETTY AMAZING YOUNG PEOPLE.

HOST: AND COMPETING NATIONALLY.

>> WE HAD SOME STUDENTS GO ON TO COMPETE IN THE URBAN NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

HOST: HOW DID THAT GO?

>> FAIRLY WELL BUT THEY DID NOT WIN THAT I TOLD THEM TO HAVE FUN AND LEARN.

IT WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE TO TRAVEL AND TO LOSE AND HEAR FROM OTHER STUDENTS DID WIN AND TAKE NOTES.

WHAT MADE THEIR ARGUMENTS MORE COMPELLING?

MORE THAN ANYTHING WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THEY LEARNED THE SKILLS.

COMPETITION IS IMPORTANT.

HOST: THE SKILLS ARE WHAT -- THAT IS PART OF WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE SKILLS, ARGUMENTATION, YOU THINK ABOUT CIVILITY AND THE BASIC NOTION OF RESPECT.

CRITICAL THINKING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU TEACH.

TALK ABOUT THE CRITICAL SKILLS, NOT JUST ABOUT THE ART OF SPEAKING ITSELF BUT WHAT COMES WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION AND THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT I BELIEVE THE SKILLS THAT DEBATE TEACH ARE MORE IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER.

THE ABILITY TO FIRST BE ABLE TO LISTEN CRITICALLY TO BOTH SIDES AND STILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE IS IMPORTANT TO USE AND WHEN TO DISMISS CERTAIN ARGUMENTS AND WHAT ARGUMENTS ARE WORKING SO FOR ME THE SKILLS THAT DEBATE TEACHES IS, OUTSIDE OF CRITICAL THINKING, CLARITY AND SPEAKING, THE ABILITY TO ASK GREAT QUESTIONS, THERE IS A WHOLE PORTION OF DEBATE THAT IS ASSESSED ON YOUR ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND THINKING ON THE FLY.

FOR ME THAT IS A SKILL THAT CAN GO REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE, THINK OF INTERVIEWS AND BUSINESS PITCHES.

THE ABILITY TO HANDLE ANY RESOLUTION OR TOPIC.

IT IS SUCH A UNIQUE ACTIVITY THAT TEACHES THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO TEACH IN OTHER WAYS AND IT MAKES IT A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT AND FUN ENVIRONMENT.

AND ONCE YOU ARE DONE YOU THINK, I DID LEARN A LOT.

HOST: YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE YOU WERE 13.

YOU STARTED IN INDIANA.

AND YOU ARE DOING IT NOW.

YOU ARE ON THE DEBATE TEAM AT HARVARD.

TELL US ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE AND THE COMPETITION OF GETTING TO THE DEBATE TEAM.

I HAVE HEARD IT IS FIERCE.

>> WITH THE HARBOR DEBATE TEAM, THEY ASSESS YOUR BACKGROUND IN HIGH SCHOOL.

YOU CAN COME ON THE TEAM BUT IT IS REALLY HARD TO COME ON A COLLEGE VARSITY TEAM UNLESS YOU DID IT AT HIGH SCHOOL SO THAT CAN BE A BARRIER.

I DID IT IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN MOVED ON TO THE HARBOR DEBATE TEAM AND HAVE DONE THAT FOR FOUR YEARS AS WELL.

I HAVE DONE THIS FOR EIGHT YEARS.

I WAS A FIRST -- NOT THE FIRST BUT THE ONLY BLACK WOMAN ON THE TEAM AT THE TIME AND IT FELT REALLY CHALLENGING.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT CRITICAL RACE THEORY WITH ARGUMENTS THEY WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT.

NOW THE TEAM IS A PREDOMINANTLY BLACK TEAM AND THE COUNCIL IS PREDOMINATELY BLACK SO THE TEAM HAS TRANSFORMED FROM ME STANDING MY GROUND.

IT HAS BEEN AN INTERESTING SPACE.

BUT I HAVE FOUND MY WAY.

HOST: I WANT TO COME BACK IN A FEW MINUTES TO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU DEBATED, CRITICAL RACE THEORY, ONE OF THE ISSUES OF OUR TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE LEARNING THE ART OF DEBATE AT THE BOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE.

WE INVITED TWO TEAMS TO OUR STUDIO TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR SKILLS.

SHOULD U.S.

ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EAT GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS BY REMOVING THE LABELS?

THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE OF THEIR DEBATE STYLE WHICH IS REALLY QUICK.

TAKE A LOOK.

>> OVER 30 MILLION AMERICANS, 10% LIVE -- ARE STRUGGLING AGAINST FOOD INSECURITY OR A LACK OF ACCESS TO FOOD.

THIS WILL MAKE PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO BUY GMO FOODS AND WILL MAKE THEM LESS AFRAID OF IT WHICH WILL INCREASE FOOD COSTS.

>> HOW IS A SIMPLE LABEL -- DOESN'’T IT LIMIT THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE BUYING CURRENTLY?

>> HAVING A LABEL CREATES FEAR MONGERING AROUND THE LABEL.

>> ARE YOU SOLVING FOR A FEAR OR FINDING A SOLUTION?

>> WE ARE FINDING A WAY TO IMPROVE FOOD ACCESS TO PEOPLE.

>> REMOVING A LABEL IS GOING TO INCREASE FOOD ACCESS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> GMO LABELS MAY BE SAY BUT THERE STILL MAY BE LONG-TERM EFFECTS.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A FOOD IS SAFE.

AMONG CONCERNS EXPRESSED ARE UNWANTED CHANGES IN NUTRITIONAL CONTENT.

FOOD DESERTS ARE IN AREAS THAT LACK GROCERY STORES AND FARMERS MARKETS.

STUDIES SUGGEST THAT HALF OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES ARE FOOD DESERTS.

A HIGH INCOME AREA IS -- WHAT COULD TYPICALLY FIND IN YOUR FREEZER SECTION.

AMERICA'’S FOOD CRISIS IS DUE TO LIMITED INCOME FROM JOBS THAT PAY LESS THAN LIVING WAGES.

>> WHAT DOES THE NEGATIVE DO?

>> THE NEGATIVES ARGUING THAT THE FOOD SUPPLY DOES NOT CAUSE ANY REAL-WORLD IMPACT AND THEY ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG THINGS IN TERMS OF LACK OF FOOD SECURITY.

>> WHAT ARE THE WRONG THINGS?

>> WE ARE SAYING THE ISSUE IS NOT INHERENTLY ABOUT THE LABELS AND THE REASON I THERE ARE SO MANY LOW INCOME FAMILIES LACKING HEALTHY FOOD IS BECAUSE OF FOOD DESERTS.

>> REMOVING FOOD LABELS CREATES A HIERARCHY THAT IS INEQUITABLE.

HAVING LABELS FAILS TO EDUCATE THE POOR COMMUNITY AND INTENSIFIES THE STRESS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF COLOR.

LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES BELIEVE THEY ARE RECEIVING SECOND RATE PRODUCE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BUY CHEAPER FOOD.

THE NEGATIVE SIDE TAKES -- LABEL STOP PER-PUPIL FROM RECEIVING HEALTHY FOOD.

BOTH SIDES ARGUE LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES DO NOT HAVE PROFICIENT ACCESS TO FOOD.

LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES DO NOT HAVE ACCESS -- IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET.

AND ADEQUATE EDUCATION.

BECAUSE OF THIS, IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE ARE NOT FOCUSED ON ENGAGEMENT IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

HOST: I AM SO ENCOURAGED BY THESE STUDENTS.

THAT WAS AMAZING.

THE NOTION OF DEBATING RATHER THAN JUST SCREAMING AND HOLLERING AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

AT THE COUNCIL YOU MUST FIND THIS INSPIRING IN THE WORK THAT YOU DO.

I AM NOT GOING TO SAY IN THE REAL WORLD BECAUSE I FIND THAT IS A PROBLEMATIC TERM.

BEYOND ACADEMIA IS WHAT I WOULD SAY.

IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, YOU ARE A HARVARD TRAINED LAWYER SO YOU ARE IN THE ART OF LAWYERING, YOU OBVIOUSLY FIND -- AND I KNOW YOU DID NOT TAKE DEBATE BUT YOU FIND IT USEFUL, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WATCHING OUR YOUNG STUDENTS ABATE, I AM ENCOURAGED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY ABOUT STABILITY REALLY BEING A CORNERSTONE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE WHETHER THAT IS POLITICS OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC SPHERE.

I THINK WHAT WE ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY NATIONALLY, IS THE DISINTEGRATION OF WHAT WE VALUE AND THAT IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE PUBLIC DEBATES AND BE IN PUBLIC FORA AND HAVING CONVERSATIONS AND BEING ABLE TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION AND PERSUADE OTHERS TO YOUR POINT RATHER THAN EXISTING ALONE IN SILOS.

I AM ENCOURAGED THAT WE HAVE OUR YOUNG STUDENTS, BLACK AND BROWN STUDENTS ABLE TO USE THEIR VOICE AND FIND THEIR VOICE AND TRY TO PERSUADE US WHETHER IT IS ABOUT GMO AND WHETHER LABELING SHOULD BE ON OUR FOOD PRODUCTS OR CRITICAL RACE THEORY -- I THINK IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE TEACHING OUR YOUNG KIDS THE VALUE OF DEBATE.

I THINK THE WORK KIM IS DOING AT THE BOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THAT INDIVIDUALLY FOR OUR OWN SCHOOL SO IT TAKES GREAT NONPROFITS LIKE THE LEAGUE TO FILL THAT GAP.

HOST: THAT IS SPOT ON I THINK.

ISSUES LIKE CRITICAL RACE THEORY , I NOTICED THAT PEOPLE CANNOT REALLY ARGUE IT.

THEY SCREAM ABOUT IT.

THEY TALK ABOUT IT BUT DO NOT ARGUE IT.

KIMBERLY, THE STYLE OF DEBATE -- PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING FAST.

TALK ABOUT THAT.

IS THAT PERSUASIVE?

>> WHAT YOU SAW WAS SLOW.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

AND AS THE BAITERS HERE CAN TELL YOU THEY WERE SPEAKING SLOWLY AND WE REMINDED THEM AT WE WANT THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

STUDENTS DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCING EVIDENCE.

IF YOU DO NOT INTRODUCE AS YOU CAN, YOU CANNOT SPEAK TO IT LATER ON.

THEY TRY TO GET OUT AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS THEY CAN SO THEY CAN CONTINUE TO BUILD THEIR ARGUMENT.

THAT IS WHY THEY SPEAK QUICKLY.

THEY ARE PREPARED.

THEY STUDIED AND RESEARCHED.

THE TOPIC THEY WERE ARGUING ABOUT IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE BEEN STUDYING ALL YEAR SO THE POLICY RESOLUTION COMES FROM THE NATIONAL LEVEL SO STUDENTS HAVE BEEN ARGUING THIS YEAR ABOUT NATO AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES.

BIOTECH, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

THIS WAS JUST ONE OF THE CASES THEY RAN OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR.

HOST: AND ONE OF THE KEY ASPECTS OF THIS, AND JOIN IN AS YOU WELL, BUT ONE KEY ASPECT IS -- YOU ARE SAYING THEY ARE TRYING TO REACH THE TRUTH AND IF YOU LOOK AT ARGUMENTATION TODAY IN THIS ERA OF EXTRAORDINARY POLARIZATION IN THE COUNTRY, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DEBATING MISINFORMATION.

THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FACTS OR DATA OR POINTS THAT CAN BE DETERMINED TO BE TRUE AND CONFIRMABLE, VERIFIABLE THEY ARE OFTEN TAKING THINGS OUT OF THE AIR AND MADE UP AS WE SAW WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT TALKING ABOUT HOW HE WON THE ELECTION.

MAKING THINGS UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE ASPECT OF DEBATE WHICH BASICALLY THE POINT IS TO REACH, NOT A POINT OF CONSENSUS BUT OF TRUTH.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT FUNDAMENTALLY?

>> I WILL START I WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY DEBATE IS CRITICAL.

WHEN YOU ARE A DEBATER YOU LEARNED THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPACT AND EVIDENCE.

PEOPLE ASSUME THAT IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING THAT MEANS THE ARGUMENT IS VALID OR THAT YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT.

ALL OF THAT IS TO SAY, THEN WE GET INTO CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, WHY DOES THIS EVIDENCE MATTER?

FOR EXAMPLE, LET'’S SAY WE FOUND A POLL THAT SAID 61% OF AMERICANS DOES A GREAT OR AGREE THAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT.

PEOPLE WOULD SAY THAT IS THE END OF THE ARGUMENT.

DEBATE TEACHES YOU TO ENGAGE CRITICALLY WITH THAT PIECE OF RESEARCH.

YOU ARE GOING TO ASK ABOUT HOW THE EVIDENCE IS USED.

YOU ALSO MAY ASK AT THE ROOT OF THE WARRANT, CAN THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE POSSIBLY BE WRONG?

HAVE PEOPLE IN HISTORY IN AMERICA BEEN WRONG ABOUT POLICY BEFORE?

AND SO I THINK THAT QUESTION IS GREAT BECAUSE IT GETS TO EVIDENCE CAN TELL MANY STORIES.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO UNPACK EVIDENCE THAT IS A UNIQUE SKILL THAT DEBATE TEACHES THAT IS NOT DEVELOPED ELSEWHERE THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO HIGHLIGHT TODAY.

HOST: IT RESONATES.

>> IT DOES.

HOST: HOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE CRITICAL RACE THEORY?

>> CAN YOU EVALUATE THE TECHNICALITIES OF HOW YOU DEBATED?

HOW DID IT SOUND?

I FIND THAT BOTH ARE NECESSARY IN DEBATE.

YOU CAN HAVE THE TECHNICALITIES, YOU CAN SAY IT WELL BUT IF THERE IS NO TRUTH TO IT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

I LIKE THE STYLE OF DEBATE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CARDS WHICH IS THE EVIDENCE.

I ZOOM IN BECAUSE YOU GET TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING AND THEN YOU USE THAT AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THEM BECAUSE SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE POLLING EVIDENCE AND INSIDE THAT SAME PIECE OF EVIDENCE IF YOU LOOK AT THE FINE PRINT, IT SAYS A DIFFERENT THING.

THAT GETS INTO THE DEBATE ABILITY OF IT AND HOW TO POLL FROM EVIDENCE AND HOW THINGS SAY ONE THING AND MEAN ANOTHER.

HOST: THIS IS ARISTOTLE.

[LAUGHTER] HOW DO YOU -- HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU WHEN YOU ARE DEBATING A POLICY IN CITY HALL?

>> AS A LAWYER, BOTH AS SOMEONE THAT STARTED MY CAREER AS A LAWYER AND WORKING IN THE BOSTON HOUSING COURT, AND I THINK ABOUT HOW -- KIMBERLY WOULD TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE AT THE BEGINNING SO YOU CAN RETURN TO THAT.

PART OF DEBATE AND PART OF BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IS TRYING TO KNOW IN ADVANCE OR THINK IN ADVANCE AND INCORPORATE IN ADVANCE THE ARGUMENTS THE OTHER SIDE WILL MAKE TO ANTICIPATE WHAT THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE AND WE'’VE THAT INTO YOUR INITIAL -- WEAVE THAT INTO YOUR INITIAL PROFFER THAT THE STATE IS MAKING OR THE POINT OF ADVOCACY YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE TO WEAKEN THEIR ARGUMENT WHEN THEY GOT TO THE STAGE TO TALK ABOUT AN ISSUE.

IT IS A GAME OF COMING TO THE TRUTH.

I THINK, AS WE CAN SEE IN OUR SOCIETY, WE ARE AT A POINT WHEN WE CANNOT EVEN AGREE ON THE MOST BASIC FACTS WHICH IS DISTURBING.

BUT A GOOD ARGUMENT, A GOOD POLICY ADVOCATE IS ALL ABOUT PRESENTING FACTS IN A WAY THAT ARE CREDIBLE AND BACKING IT UP WITH EVIDENCE AND ANTICIPATING WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS GOING TO SAY AND INCORPORATING THAT ARGUMENT IN AND BEING ABLE TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT IS SIMPLE.

HOST: WHICH IS WHAT A LAWYER DOES AND BACKING UP WITH EVIDENCE -- I AM INSPIRED IN AN AGE OF TROLLS.

ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT DEBATE IS THAT IT IS QUITE OFTEN GREAT ORATORY IN SINGULAR SPEECHES LIKE DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING AND MOST RECENTLY WE SAW IT WITH JUSTIN PEARSON.

A YOUNG CONGRESSMAN WHO WAS REINSTATED TO HIS SEAT IN THE TENNESSEE STATE LEGISLATURE.

HE WAS RECENTLY EXPELLED.

DURING HIS HEARING HE SPOKE ABOUT REMAINING VIGILANT.

TAKE A LOOK.

>> THE LESSON FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IN NASHVILLE THAT DECIDED TO EXPEL US -- YOU CANNOT EXPEL HOPE.

YOU CANNOT EXPEL JUSTICE.

YOU CANNOT EXPEL OUR VOICE.

AND YOU SURE CANNOT EXPEL OUR FIGHT.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO FIGHT, CONTINUING TO ADVOCATE UNTIL JUSTICE ROLLS DOWN LIKE WATER.

HOST: NOW REINSTATED REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN PEARSON ALONG WITH JUSTIN JONES, AGAIN, AN EXAMPLE OF GREAT ORATORY.

WHO ELSE WOULD YOU SAY INSPIRES YOU IN TERMS OF GREAT ORATORY?

>> MY GOODNESS, THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE.

YOU NAMED FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IS ONE MAYA ANGELOU IS ANOTHER.

AUDREY LORD.

A LOT OF PEOPLE INSPIRE ME.

THOSE ARE PROBABLY UP THERE AT THE TOP.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY AUDREY LORD AS WELL.

I LOVE HER POETRY AND I USED IT A LOT IN DEBATE AND USED IT AS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

HOST: YOU USED POETRY WITH DEBATE.

IT IS INSPIRING TO ME AS WELL.

>> I AM IMPRESSED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION SO FOR ME A LOT OF TIME SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN AND AOC, ANY TIME I SEE THEM DO QUESTIONING ON THE FLOOR, IT IS BRILLIANT.

THEY FOR ME WOULD BE WHO I WOULD TURN TO.

>> A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT KIMBERLY AND LYNN HAVE MENTIONED, OF COURSE.

AUDREY LORD.

OF COURSE, MAYA ANGELOU.

I DID NOT DO DEBATE IN HIGH SCHOOL BUT I DID DECLAMATION WHICH REQUIRED ME EVERY TERM TO TAKE A PIECE OF A SPEECH AND RECITE IT.

BUT I AM ENCOURAGED AND I ENJOY WATCHING JUSTICE CANTON G BROWN JACKSON RIGHT NOW AS OUR FIRST BLACK WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT WHO HERSELF STARTED OUT IN DEBATE.

THE WAY SHE QUESTIONS AND THE WAY THAT SHE BRINGS THE FULLNESS OF HER EXPERIENCE, THAT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING INTERESTING FOR US ALL TO WATCH.

SENATOR WARREN BRINGS HER SKILL AS AN ATTORNEY TO THE FLOOR WHEN YOU SEE HER QUESTIONING AND I THINK THAT IS WONDERFUL.

IN THE TRADITION OF FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, BLACK FOLKS IN AMERICA HAVE GREAT EXAMPLES AND AS SOMEONE WHO IS A HAITIAN I LOOK AT THE WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF OUR FREEDOM FIGHTER.

THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS OUR STORIES, BECAUSE WE ARE STRUGGLING, THERE IS SO MUCH BEAUTY IN THE WORDS TO DEFEND AND FIGHT FOR OUR BASIC FREEDOM.

HOST: THIS IS EXCELLENT.

WE ARE ALSO -- I WOULD SAY ANOTHER GOOD SPEAKER OR DEBATER IS THE TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY.

GOING INTO A FINAL QUESTION, THIS QUESTION IS ABOUT WHAT IS NOT DEBATABLE.

YOU HAVE A FORMER PRESIDENT, GOING BACK TO DONALD TRUMP WHO TALKED ABOUT GOOD PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES IN DISCUSSING THE NEO-NAZI MARCH, THE UNITE TO MARCH -- THE UNITE TO FIGHT MARGE.

SOME SAY THERE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE HOLOCAUST THAT CAN BE DEBATED.

SOME SAY THE RIGHTS OF LGBTQ PEOPLE ARE DEBATABLE.

WHAT IS NOT DEBATABLE IN YOUR VIEW?

>> AS A BLACK GAY MAN AND THREE BLACK WOMEN HERE, THIS IS A GREAT QUESTION FOR US TO HANDLE SO FOR ME IT IS ANYTHING THAT DOES RUBS OTHER PEOPLE'’S DIGNITY OR THEIR RIGHTS.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION.

IF YOU BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE SHOULD NOT HAVE RIGHTS ETC., THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR OPINION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS A UNIVERSAL TRUTH OR THAT IT SHOULD DICTATE THE POLICIES OR DECISIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

I TELL PEOPLE I'’M WILLING TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE AND DIALOGUE ON ALMOST ANYTHING UNLESS WE COME TO THE TABLE WITH THE SAME UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERY PERSON HAS DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND IF I AM DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS WORTHY OF DIGNITY OR RESPECT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THAT CONVERSATION.

I AM INTERESTED IN THE EQUITY OF IT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT BUT I DON'’T THAT INTO CONVERSATIONS TO PROVE PEOPLE WORTH OR IDENTITY.

IT IS NOT FRUITFUL.

HOST: I APPRECIATE THAT.

KIMBERLY, YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> I WOULD ADD TO THAT THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND IS WHAT CAUSES SOMEONE ELSE HARM.

I'’M NOT INTERESTED IN ENGAGING IN A CONVERSATION THAT CAUSES HARM TO SOMEONE.

WHEN I THINK OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WE WORK WITH, AS THEY ENTER SPACES, WILL THIS CAUSE THEM HARM?

WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT MIGHT CAUSE SOMEONE HARM.

>> THAT IS EXCELLENT.

AND I AGREE.

I AM NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN A DEBATE THAT IS ABOUT STRIPPING AWAY SOMEONE'’S DIGNITY AND HUMANITY.

WHEN I LOOK AT SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO DEBATE THE HOLOCAUST OR THE MERITS OF SLAVERY, WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION?

IT IS OFTEN ROOTED IN MAINTAINING WHITE SUPREMACIST STRUCTURES IN OUR SOCIETY THAT WE MUST DISMANTLE.

IT IS NOT ONE THAT IS ROOTED IN TRYING FOR OBJECTIVITY OR TRYING TO HAVE CONVERSATION.

WE CAN ARGUE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT.

THERE ARE SO MANY CRISES ON OUR HANDS.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE BEST WAY TO ATTACK AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ADDRESSING THE CLIMATE JUSTICE ISSUES ON OUR DOORSTEP BUT WE CANNOT DEBATE SOMETHING THAT IS INTEGRAL ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY WHEN WE ARE BUILDING OUR MORE JUST SOCIETY.

HOST: WE WILL GIVE OUR FINAL WORD TO OUR HARBOR DEBATER PURE >> YOU ALL SAID IT.

IT IS BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

WE CANNOT DEBATE WHAT DESTROYS SOMEONE'’S HUMAN DIGNITY.

AND WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT HOW HARD IT CAN BE FOR BLACK AND BROWN YOUTH TO NAVIGATE THOSE THINGS.

WE SHOULD NOT LET THEM DEBATE THAT OR BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THAT WHICH IS WHY WE NEED GREAT COACHES AND LEADERS.

SOMETIMES IT IS OK TO HALT A DEBATE AND SAY, IT IS TOO MUCH FOR ME.

THIS IS NOT DEBATABLE.

HOST: A LOT OF THINGS ARE DEBATABLE BUT SOME THINGS ARE NOT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FOLKS, THAT IS THE END OF OUR BROADCAST AND THE END OF OUR SHOW.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND STAY WITH US AS WE CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATION ON OUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS, YOUTUBE AND FACEBOOK.

♪ ♪