Topics for parliamentary debates are often drawn from policy issues, whether public policy or foreign policy. Debates could center on such issues as school vouchers, euthanasia, organ donation, tax on fatty foods, or abolition of the minimum wage. Foreign policy topics might include whether the U.S. should lift sanctions on Cuba, send more troops to Afghanistan, or continue funding the current wars. Parliamentary debaters are allowed wide scope in defining the specific case to be argued from the resolution at hand, which enhances the extemporaneous nature of the debate.
Because parliamentary debates are structured loosely on the deliberative discussions of the British House of Commons, topics of political theory and law often arise. Libertarian notions are often raised, such as establishing that a war on drugs is inadvisable in a free society or abolishing paternalistic laws. Cases might be drawn from constitutional or procedural law, or abstract legal theory such as the value of retributive justice. Parliamentary debaters are expected to have a broad knowledge of many disciplines, and to apply that knowledge in arguing for or against any particular case.
Since issues of morality and ethics require little documentation and can be argued in several ways, they are popular topics for parliamentary debate. Religious topics come up for debate as well, "are atheists rational" or "does God punish sinners for eternity." Hypothetical moral dilemmas also come into play. Morality and ethics can lead to serious debate resolutions or at times humorous resolutions, as we have heard from the medieval past of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no proof either way, which can lead to fast and funny pros and cons.
Time-space resolutions are common in parliamentary debate but rare in other debate forums. In time-space cases, the judge of the debate is put in the position of a historical or fictional character, and the judge must then decide the debate based on that position. These cases are phrased, for example, as "You are Harry Truman in 1945. Do not drop the bomb," and the teams argue the case from there. Often humorous topics are chosen and argued in parliamentary debates. As the main mission of parliamentary debate is to educate, inform and entertain, humorous cases provide an equally good forum for logical thinking, wit, and speaking. One debate topic posed by John Meany, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Vermont, is "apples and oranges make strange bedfellows."