The five types of BP debates.

All motions as for example: This house believes abortion is murder or This house would accept Turkey in EU or This house believes that police should search houses to prevent terrorism, have something in common. They can basically be arranged into five basic types of debates. (Thanks to guys from Oxford for explaining them to us):

1. Ends vs. Means
2. Isolation vs. Integration
3. Security vs. Civil liberties
4. Freedom vs. Preventing 3rd party harm
5. Long term vs. Short term

The first example falls into the principles of the Freedom vs. Preventing 3rd party harm debate type. The second motion example fits the principles of Isolation vs. Integration and third motion under the Security vs. Civil liberties type.

If you look at almost any random debate motion, you will see that it "fits" into the principles of these five debate types. Some motions may include a mix of two or even three types of principle debates, but still almost every debate is about these basic ideas. And knowing how to qualify any motion under these basic principle debates is a skill I have observed in many experienced British parliamentary debaters. So why is that such an important skill? Well, because these debaters then always know exactly in which principle spheres the debate is and the understanding of these ideas makes it far easier for them to come up with arguments, examples and underlying logic.

But understanding that all debates are basically about five basic principle debates is also important for your scores, because good adjudicators are also very familiars with these types of debates and if they hear a concept they are familiar with, they know you really understand what you are debating about. That means they are more likely to understand your argumentation in the way you want to present it and therefore consider your speech as having more weight in a debate as such.

Every time you see a motion it is important that you:

1. Qualify it under one or maybe two "Five BP debates" .
2. Ask yourself what is the problem and what principles I can use to explain it in favour of my side.
3. Ask yourself what do I have to prove to tip the scale onto my side of these principles behind five basic debates? So for example if you are the opposition in the this house would invade Iran debate, you should prove that isolation is a better idea (principle) then intervention in this case.
4. Use appropriate argument names (tag names) in the debate itself. These make it easier for the adjudicators to understand the ideas you are presenting under the underlying principle.

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. - Henry David Thoreau.