There are multiple kinds of argument formats in Parliamentary style debate, and you have to take different approaches to all of them. Here are some of the most common ones:

This argument is about whether you (as an organization, government, or even group of people in this room) would or would not hypothetically implement a proposed policy or action. Side government argues for implementation, while side opposition argues against.

In this debate, it is typical for side government to propose an action plan, or present the benefits of implementing this policy. Side opposition would, in turn, either present a counter-model or, more commonly, argue the risks, potential drawbacks, and negative consequences of the action.

For example: THW ban single-use plastics

• Side government would explain the benefits of banning single-use plastics and discuss an action plan for doing so (eg: banning single-use plastic will be good for the environment, and the ban would be gradual, so there is time for people to adjust to the change).
• Side opposition would argue that banning single-use plastics could have major negative consequences, and that those consequences outweigh potential benefits (eg: banning single-use plastic would have great sanitation concerns, particularly in hospitals).

This argument is about whether a historical event, policy, or socioeconomic/cultural phenomenon should be regretted, focusing on past events and their consequences rather than whether or not to do something in the present. Side government argues that the event should be regretted, while side opposition argues that it should not.

Typically, this involves side government demonstrating why the world/the present would be better if the event didn’t happen, and side opposition arguing that things would be the same or worse if a different path had been taken, and potentially highlighting the benefits of the action. This does not involve arguing whether or not said event/policy/action/phenomenon was intentionally malicious.

For example: THR the rise of social media

• Side government would examine the negative consequences of social media and argue why the world would be better without it, even if it’s on a small scale (eg: social media has had a detrimental effect on teenagers and their mental health, and adolescents would have better attention spans if social media didn’t become so popular).
• Side opposition would argue that social media has had overall more benefits for teenagers than detrimental consequences, and that these benefits outweigh other issues (eg: social media has allowed people to stay in contact like never before, and permitted people to keep up with each other even when they can’t talk over the phone).

This argument is about whether or not you, as a house, government, entity, or otherwise, agree with the statement that follows. Side government agrees with the statement, while side opposition disagrees. This debate is different from THW arguments because it is not about policy implementation or taking any real-world actions—it’s about whether or not each side agrees or disagrees with a hypothetical, philosophical, or factual idea.

For example: THBT having children in today’s world is immoral.

• Side government would argue that having children would have overall negative consequences on society, to the point of it being a moral responsibility to abstain from having children (eg: the world population is already too large and children consume additional resources).
• Side opposition would argue that having children is not immoral—either by arguing that having children is, in fact, moral, or that it is of neutral moral value (eg: it is in humanity’s interest to have descendants and continue our lineage, and/or it is an individual’s decision to have a child, independent of society’s beliefs).