If you were giving evidence in this situation and you believed you had been wrongly accused, then you'd argue the case in your favour rather than the accusor.
But he's not giving evidence, he's distorting evidence given by other people. They said, in effect, "I don't have a distinct memory of it happening", whereas his claim is that they are making the stronger claim of "it definitely never happened".
It's worth reading that through, because the more ridiculous aspects of his testimony (blustering, changing the subject, angrily turning the question on the committee, and trying to portray himself as a diligent student who would never have got drunk, despite numerous witnesses who say otherwise), is demonstrated in the second half.
But he's not giving evidence, he's distorting evidence given by other people. They said, in effect, "I don't have a distinct memory of it happening", whereas his claim is that they are making the stronger claim of "it definitely never happened".
It's worth reading that through, because the more ridiculous aspects of his testimony (blustering, changing the subject, angrily turning the question on the committee, and trying to portray himself as a diligent student who would never have got drunk, despite numerous witnesses who say otherwise), is demonstrated in the second half.