When the proposition of the debate is decided, we must analyze it in order to find reasons for and against it.  First, we must know the meanings of the proposition.  It usually involves finding possible definitions of the key terms in the proposition.  Second, we must break down the complicated topic into several smaller issues in order to understand the nature of the proposition.

1. Defining Terms

1.1. Debate propositions are subject to interpretation.
Sometimes debate propositions are very specific in meaning as in "Resolved: That the Japanese government should abolish capital punishment" or "Resolved: That Japan should be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."  In these cases, we can immediately tell what the affirmative team should propose in debate.

It is often the case, however, that debate propositions are more broadly worded so that they allow different interpretations.  For example, in a proposition, "Resolved: That the Japanese Government should significantly decrease its control over agricultural products," there will be more than one interpretation of the words control and agricultural products."

1.2. Prepare for a broad range of interpretations.
In the beginning of the analysis, it is often a good idea for debaters to explore different meanings of the words in the proposition in order to find different interpretations of the proposition.  It is also advisable to prepare good standard definitions of the most of the words in the proposition because they may be necessary in debate when the opponent team introduces non-standard definitions.  The most outrageous example of definition I have ever observed was that the sentence-final punctuation mark "period" was defined as a medical term.  Although you can laugh at it, you may find it difficult to reject that strange definition on the spot.  Probably the judges would not accept the definition, but you may at least suffer from psychological stress in the middle of the debate.

1.3. Affirmative team must define the proposition in a round.
In academic debate the affirmative team has the obligation and the privilege to interpret the proposition.  It must define any ambiguous words so that the meaning of the proposition may be clear.  Affirmative debaters do not need to define every single word in a proposition.  Usually they must only define several content words which are relevant to the subject of debate.  They also want to define words which have more than one meaning.  The affirmative team has a right to choose any reasonable interpretation out of the possible interpretations.  For example, in the agricultural topic above, the affirmative team must and can specify what kind of control over what kind of products to be decreased.  As long as the affirmative team's interpretation is reasonable, the negative team in the round must accept it and debate based on that interpretation.  If the negative team find that the affirmative teams interpretation is unreasonable, it can challenge it and the question of definitions and interpretations should be resolved within the debate.

1.4. Meaning of the word should in a policy proposition.
All policy propositions have the word should in them.  It is not necessary to define should in a proposition of policy.  It always means that the affirmative team must show the desirability of adopting the proposition but not necessarily a possibility of its adoption in the real world.  In other words, a proposition of policy requires the affirmative team to show that the proposed policy would produce desirable advantages if it was adopted.  It does not require the affirmative team that the proposed policy will be adopted in the real world.  This convention avoids any unnecessary and unproductive arguments such as that the current government would oppose the proposed policy or that the proposed policy would be judged unconstitutional and hence would be rejected in the real world.  In academic debate, the participants of the debate assume that the proposed policy would be adopted in the real world and examine good and bad effects produced by its adoption.

1.5. Methods of definition.
There are a number of ways to define words and phrases.  For example, you can give examples or an exhaustive list of what

1.5.1. Giving examples
 You can give examples to clarify the meaning of a term.  Suppose you will debate the proposition "Resolved: That smoking should be prohibited in public places."  You want to define the words "smoking" and "public places," you may be able to define it as:

"Smoking" in this debate means smoking cigarettes and cigars.

"Public places" means places like parks, stations, department stores, schools, and other similar places.

1.5.2. Using dictionaries
 You can use comprehensive language dictionary such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Third New International Dictionary.  In some cases, learners' dictionary such as Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English will be sufficient.

 You can also use encyclopedias such as Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana.  For information about things related to Japan, you may want to refer to Encyclopedia of Japan (published from Kodansha International).

 If you want to find more technical meanings of legal and scientific words often used in propositions, you should use specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias in the fields of law or science and technology.

1.5.3. Using authorities (experts)
 Some of the technical terms may be best defined by referring to the definitions found in introductory books (textbooks) of the relevant fields.  You may also find specialized definitions in more theoretical works.  For example, if you have a proposition "Resolved: That Japan should legalize euthanasia," you will find definitions of "euthanasia" in medical textbooks much more detailed and accurate than those in ordinary dictionaries.

1.5.4. Operational definition
When you debate a proposition of policy, the affirmative team often define the meaning of the proposition by giving a specific plan of action.  In analyzing a proposition, debaters can test whether their interpretation of the proposition is a plausible one by using this method.  If they cannot think of a specific plan of action, their interpretation is probably wrong.  For example, in debating a proposition, "Resolved: That the Japanese government should legalize organ transplant from brain-dead donors," if a team defines the word organ as a musical instrument, it will be almost impossible to find a plan to carry out.

2. Finding Issues

When you try to find reasons to support or oppose the proposition, you want to break down the complicated topic into several simpler sub-topics.  In debating propositions of policy, a long-standing practice of debating has generated a set of stock questions to ask when you analyze a proposition.  They are called stock issues.  The following questions are so phrased that the affirmative team wants to answer "yes" and the negative team wants to answer "no" to those questions.  In the following, we will use the proposition "Resolved: That the Japanese government should prohibit smoking in public places."

2.1. Is there a serious problem that calls for change? (Significance)
 Since debate often starts with an idea that something is wrong with the present system.  You must find a problem.  If we are satisfied with the current condition, we don't have to bother to change anything.  In debate, you must find a serious (significant) problem because the proposed change in the resolution is often of a large scale.  You don't really want to start a big change just to cope with a trivial problem.  You show the significance of the problem in terms of quality and/or quantity.

 In the "smoking" debate, the affirmative team must present a significant problem to justify such a big change of banning smoking in all (or most) public places in Japan.  If the problem is that several people around you are suffering from minor uncomfortableness about smoking, you would not agree to the total ban on smoking in all public places in Japan.  If the problem is one million cases of lung cancer annually associated with passive smoking, many people would agree to change the policy on smoking.  Lung cancer is very serious in nature (qualitatively significant) and it is affecting one million (quantitatively significant) people.

2.2. Is the problem inherent in the present system? (Inherency)
 You must find a problem very closely connected with the present system (i.e., the absence of the proposition or the affirmative plan).  If the affirmative team tries to deal with all cases of lung cancer in Japan, it is not an inherent problem in the "smoking" proposition.  The affirmative must narrow down the problem to "lung cancer caused by second-hand smoking," which is likely to be an inherent problem.  Still more, the affirmative will be wise to define the problem as "lung cancer which will be caused by second-hand smoking in public places" since the affirmative plan won't solve the existing cases of lung cancer and those of wives caused by their husbands' bedroom smoking.

2.3. Is there a practical plan to solve the problem? (Practicality)
 This question often involves questions of technology and personnel.  In the "smoking" debate, the affirmative plan may require some kind of enforcement.  Probably the police will warn or arrest those who are smoking in public. If the police is too busy or the number of policemen is not enough for such a plan, the plan's practicality will be in question.  If you are debating a new energy policy and the affirmative upholds the extensive use of solar energy.  We must consider the technological development.

 Note that this question does not include such questions as the constitutionality and the popularity of the plan among political parties in Japan.  In academic debate, we can freely debate whether a proposed policy would be desirable if it were put into effect.  It is not a valid argument that the "smoking ban" plan won't pass the Diet since most members of the Diet are smokers who will oppose such a plan.

2.4. Would the affirmative plan solve the problem? (Solvency)
 Debaters must consider the process of how the plan would solve the problem after it was adopted and put into effect.  In the "smoking" debate, the affirmative must explain how the ban on smoking in public places would prevent people from inhaling harmful substances contained in cigarette smoke thus prevent lung cancer.  The negative may want to show people would smoke more in private places thus offset the amount of smoking.  It may want to show that lung cancer has complex causes and the simple elimination of a single cause (smoking) will not decrease the number of cancer cases.

2.5. Is the affirmative plan free from any serious disadvantages? (Disadvantages)
 This issue is different from other issues in the sense that the negative team must bring up disadvantages.  It must show that there are serious (significant) disadvantages that would be caused by the affirmative plan.  The affirmative team in the beginning does not need to show that its plan is free from disadvantages.  It must only defend its plan against those disadvantages raised by the negative team.

 In the "smoking" debate, the negative team may want to argue that cigarette industry would suffer, the tax revenue would decrease, smokers would have stress because they could not smoke in many places.  It must show that such problems are significant in terms of quality and/quantity.  It must also show that the disadvantage is unique (=inherent) to the affirmative plan.  It must show that the process of how disadvantages are brought about by the affirmative plan.  In this way, the negative team has the burden of proving disadvantages comparable to the burden of the affirmative team.

2.6. Is there an alternative plan that would solve the problem better than the affirmative plan? (Counterplan)
In addition to the above five questions, debaters must think about possible alternative plans for the negative team to defend.  In a policy debate, the negative team often defends the present system in opposition to the affirmative team which criticizes it.  But in some cases, the negative team presents a plan of their own (called a counterplan) which must be different from the proposition (non-topicality).  The negative team must show that the plan would be practical and would solve the problem better than the affirmative plan (superiority).  It must also show that the counterplan and the affirmative plan cannot be adopted at the same time (competitiveness).  If the adoption of the both is possible, the affirmative team will win the debate because the negative team fails to reject the affirmative plan.  If both are good, the affirmative plan is indeed good, i.e., the affirmative team fulfills the requirement of the winning.
 

Exercises

1. Find different definitions of the key words in the propositions below.  Try to use different sources for definitions such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, and textbooks of the subject areas.  If you already have a proposition to debate, work on definitions of the key words in the proposition.

Resolved: That the Japanese government should adopt a program to increase the use of recycled materials.
Resolved: That the Japanese government should legalize euthanasia for patients of terminal illness.
Resolved: That Japan should significantly increase indirect taxes.
Resolved: That greater legal responsibilities for minors in Japan are desirable.
Resolved: That the Japanese Government should significantly decrease its control over agricultural products.

2. Suggest several possible affirmative plans for the propositions in Exercise 1.

3. What are major issues involved in the propositions in Exercise 1.