What is Thy Bidding?

LOS ANGELES, Cali. — Nadir Joshua debated late elimination rounds at such tournaments as Emory, St. Mark’s, and Wake Forest, placed second at the Stanford Round Robin, and was champion of the Malcolm A. Bump Memorial Tournament, the Lexington Winter Invitational, the Manchester-by-the-Sea Invitational, the Princeton Classic, and the New Jersey State Tournament. He also advanced to semifinals at the Harvard National Invitational, and the 1998 National Tournament of Champions. This is quite a resume, of course, but the legendary accomplishment that most endures is related to the latter tournament: Nadir Joshua remains the unrivaled TOC bid leader, having earned eleven qualifying bids to the TOC his senior year.

The bid leader joined me for an exclusive VBD interview.

JC: How did you get involved in Lincoln-Douglas debate?

My brother went to Science High School, and took a math class with Brent Farrand, the head coach of the debate team. He suggested to my parents that my brother join the team. My brother was less than interested, so that didn’t happen.

When I started at Science, my mother encouraged me to try out for the debate team, citing that I “like to argue.” I tried out, and in the process, Jonathan Alston picked me for LD.

As Jonathan tells it, I was the last pick. All of the students trying out are asked to take a position on a fairly generic topic. Each student speaks and there is a chance for rebuttal. After Jonathan and Mr. Farrand fought over all the students they really wanted, Jonathan says they had to decide who would take the “skinny, quiet kid.” Since there were an even number of policy debaters, Jonathan “took” me. I’ve never asked Mr. Farrand if that is true, though.

JC: You achieved a lot during your high school debate career. What win made you proudest?

It’s hard to say what my proudest win in debate was. Closing out state finals with my teammate, Tom Graham, was pretty exciting because our team had a long history of winning state finals. Making it to semis at the TOC meant a lot to me, too. I think, though, the Newark City finals my sophomore year was a win that was particularly special because I won it a few days after a very special aunt died.

JC: You mentioned state finals. Jonathan Alston remains an incredibly respected coach and critic. He is himself a past Newark Science debater and State Champion, just like you. What was it like working with him for four years?

NJ: Working with Jonathan was fantastic. He is deeply invested in the students on his team, and intensely commited to cultivating the talent of students in Newark. I think he views his role more as mentor/older brother than merely coach. That is certainly what he was to me, which made for a pretty close relationship. He’s incredibly principled in the way he approaches judging debate rounds, and he really believes in openess and the educational value of the activity. He was fairly new at coaching when I joined the team, so we learned a lot together. We pretty much thought the same by my senior year. I think if you gave us a topic and asked us to develop positions in separate rooms, we’d probably end up with substantially the same case.

As a coach, he was intellectually challenging. He was competitive, but it was always directed towards my goals, not any personal ambition on his part. He always maintained perspective on winning and losing, couldn’t, which I think you need as a debater. I never felt pressure to win. He’s also incredibly light-hearted. I was often the victim of “skinny” jokes and other jokes for that matter.

JC: How would you describe your debate style as compared to the predominant styles of your contemporaries?

I have no perspective on how I debated (it’s been so very long), and I think my style changed over the years. I remember a good friend from Vestavia, Ben Davidson, describing me as “sassy.” In some ways, that is accurate. By my senior year, Jonathan and I realized that when rounds were close, I tended to lose, so we worked to make every round as clear as possible, which in many instances involved a debate style/strategy, particularly in cross-ex, that was very aggressive. As far as other style qualities go, I was a bit fast, and I was usually focused on the line-by-line. I’d like to think that as a debater I tried to take positions on how either side’s values would shape the world (and the benefits of living in that type of world), but that may be my post-competitive perspective. I think that’s certainly what we tried to do when developing cases, though.

JC: You debated some really fierce competitors during your debate career. Who did you consider your most intense rivals?

NJ: I remember it all being very friendly, so I wouldn’t describe anyone as a rival. I may also have to split it up between the regional and national circuit. Regionally, I remember having some pretty tough rounds against Ben Shultz (often in early out rounds, unfortunately) and Shankar Duriswamy. I don’t think I hit too many of the same people consistently on the national circuit. As best as I can remember, I usually hit the more successful debaters my year in round robins rather than tournaments. I remember rounds against Anna Manasco, Allison Pickett and Alex Gomez always being pretty intense.

JC: While you debated, did you see any trends in forms of argumentation or presentation that you did not like? Trends you did like?

NJ: Nothing stands out in my mind. My coach and I hated “Justice” as a value premise, we typically only ran one criterion, and we stayed away from sub-contentions and the like. I don’t think I was different in that regard, though. I don’t really remember debate changing during my four years (other than complaints about speed), but there were significant changes when I came back to judge (especially in the first two or three years), particularly with the use of evidence in LD. I don’t really have an opinion on whether that’s good or bad, though, because I’m not involved enough to know what effect it has on argumentation.

JC: If your cases weren’t heavily evidence-based, what kinds of work did you do prior to tournaments to prepare for tournaments? Given the great successes you had, there’s no doubt wisdom to be shared.

NJ: When I debated, quotes were generally used to substantiate the principles of one’s case or a particular argument. We did not stake out positions based on evidence. That’s what I meant by the last answer.

The prep for tournaments was pretty basic. I’d love to say that I did tons of rebuttal re-dos and spent time working on word economy, but I didn’t. We developed cases early and worked on them as we went to different tournaments and tried out our position. Although I don’t really remember rewriting cases a lot, we would develop new ways to go for different things in our cases based on comments from judges and our in round experience.

As a team, we’d go through the arguments that we’d heard at tournaments and think about ways to deal with them. We would have lots of practice debates rounds, and in my senior year, my coach started sitting in on my rounds at tournaments, which really helped him see how I performed in competition.

JC: What are you doing with your life today? How did debate help shape the person you are today?

NJ: I’m presently transitioning out of traditional legal practice and into LGBT advocacy and policy work. Debate taught me a good deal about myself and my ability to reason. I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t have the same grasp of my capabilities if I weren’t a debater. It made me much more competitive (and possibly ambitious) that I would have been otherwise. Winning or at least wanting to win, taught me what was possible with hard work in a way that nothing else had before. Certainly, debate has made public speaking a lot easier, as well, and it’s shaped the way I discuss social and political issues. I’d also say that being a debater from Newark taught me about advocacy in a larger sense than particular rounds. Jonathan made clear that the activity was useful because it helped us think about the world and how we could change our communities. That sense is what I most remember about my time as a debater.

JC: You seem very, very positive. Are there any regrets you have from your debating days?

NJ: I’m sure Jonathan would say that I should regret not going to Nationals my senior year, even though I won our state’s district tournament. I don’t have any regrets, though. I had a great time and I learned a lot!

—
This brief interview is a small taste of what’s to come as I return to presenting insights from present and historical movers and shakers in the Lincoln-Douglas debate community. These next few weeks, I’ll be introducing new audiences to older pieces and presenting all audiences with new pieces.

Popularity: 3% [?]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009 at 11:16 pm and is filed under Interviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.