This study analyzed the ways and characteristics that the college students built up the constructive speech on the basis of three core factors, such as concept-definitions, stock issues, and claims and warrants. First, most students struggled to deal with concept-definitions. Their levels of clear concept-definitions affected the whole procedures of debate. Second, students showed a tendency to choose specific stock issues based on their debate strategies. For example, students intentionally avoided unfavorable issues instead of fully covering stock issues for the debate. Third, most students struggled to deal with value issues more than policy issues. They approached to the theme focusing on the policy issues, even though value issues were also embedded in them. Fourth, most students lacked analytic reasoning skills needed to verify their claims. Students often used the claim-data structure, rather than the claim-warrant-data structure. Deep investigation of stock issues is critical to correspondence with the nature of debate as a problem-solving trial for a community. Using core factors that construct argument, such as concept-definitions, stock issues, and claims and warrants, as a content-organizer may promote students` debate abilities.