The Instigator
bhaskarmishra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

when it comes to diplomacy big guns work the best

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 73157
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

bhaskarmishra

Pro

it is absolute in case of united states of America
tejretics

Con

As the BoP is on Pro, I shall not post any arguments till Pro posts theirs. By standard DDO maxims, I shall provide definitions of the terms:

Diplomacy - the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad
Big - of considerable size or extent.
Gun - a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
Best - of the most excellent or desirable type or quality.

All definitions from the New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Debate Round No. 1
bhaskarmishra

Pro

is it relevant to use "PRE-EMPTIVE" strike meaning i can attack anyone i want , because I FEEL THREATENED.
tejretics

Con

Rebuttals
Pro's argument is irrelevant to the resolution. That is only in the specific case of being threatened directly or indirectly as a pre-emptive strike.

Arguments
As defined, diplomacy is the skill of managing international relations. Pro states that war is the sole option, specifically with the usage of "big guns", to manage international relations. Let me portray the disadvantages of war when not threatened and more useful ways of managing international relations.

I. Destroying Cordial Relations
Let us take the example of the United States. The United States maintains strong cordial relations with the United Kingdom. [1] Pro's assertion is non-specific in that it states war is the best way to manage diplomatic relations, even if the relations are cordial. This is unnecessary war.

II. Disadvantages of War
IIA. Civilian Casualties & National Security

The main reason for war is often to maintain national security. [2] An unprovoked conflict [even if it is provoked by crisis] will result in many civilian casualties and destruction of technologies, infrastructure, etc. The destruction of infrastructure will result in a severe breach of the state's national security and ability to wage war. The breach of national security will be further than any security provocation.

IIB. Economic Disadvantages
If a state is responsible for the invasion, then it will doubtlessly face severe economic sanctions from other nations. The economic sanctions will result in the state exhausting its resources and being isolated from all other states, resulting in eventual socio-economic fallout. The lack of resources will result in starving civilians and an internal crisis that will absolutely cripple the state. Civilian casualties will greatly destroy the economic manpower and labor force of the state; this will also force the state away from declaring total war. This will probably result in the state's eventual destruction. [3]

IIC. Environmental Effects
War will result not only in depletion of resources but overall environmental fallout. Biodiversity, basic needs [eg. water, food], etc. will be crippled by warfare.

"
Resources are a key source of conflict between nations: “after the end of the Cold War in particular, many have suggested that environmental degradation will exacerbate scarcities and become an additional source of armed conflict.” A nation’s survival depends on resources from the environment. Resources that are a source of armed conflict include territory, strategic raw materials, sources of energy, water, and food. In order to maintain resource stability, chemical and nuclear warfare have been used by nations in order to protect or extract resources, and during conflict. These agents of war have been used frequently: “about 125,000 tons of chemical agents were employed during World War I, and about 96,000 tons during the Viet-Nam conflict.” However, contaminated vegetation would mostly be spared, and would only pose a threat to herbivores. The result of innovations in chemical warfare led to a broad range of different chemicals for war and domestic use, but also resulted in unforeseen environmental damage." [4]

III. "Big Guns" vs. More Efficient Weaponry
IIIA. Blast Effects
Missiles such as the BGM-109 Tomahawk and other ICBMs and cruise missiles have warheads filled with high explosives such as TNT, resulting in much greater blast yields that "big guns", allowing quick ends to war. [5]

IIIB. Speed
Fast cruise missiles such as BrahMOS can actually move swifter and allow for fast offensives. The usage of missiles also allows for quick Blitzkrieg-like attacks, swooping and attacking opponents before retreating, resulting in minimal damage to your side.

Conclusion
The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
bhaskarmishra

Pro

bhaskarmishra forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

I extend all my arguments. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bhaskarmishra 2 years ago
bhaskarmishra
i didn't knew about the functions of this forum
since i m new to this
your help will be respected.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
By definition: diplomacy does not involve violence or threats. That is not diplomatic. So... you are wrong by default by choosing pro.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Yep :)
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Yep :)
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Yep :)
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
"Diplomacy" and "Big Guns" is a contradiction of terms.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Yes, I can.

If you are PRO:
1. Without warfare, non-peaceful diplomacy cannot be settled. Economic warfare will merely cripple trade on both sides. If affecting yourself, then shouldn't you cripple your opposition?
2. Remember that if trade agreements do not work, in a situation of crisis, military support IS necessary.

If you are CON:
Merely use the same arguments I have written. They should challenge it enough.

*Ensure definitions are clearly provided.*
Posted by bhaskarmishra 2 years ago
bhaskarmishra
can you suggest me some questions to ask
the opponents
for both for and against
please
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
You're welcome. Feel free to ask me for any info.
Posted by bhaskarmishra 2 years ago
bhaskarmishra
i need information on this topic for my class debate competition..
thank you for your participation
your effort has been honored
thankx again
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
bhaskarmishratejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro. No significant argument presented by Pro. Con cited the only sources.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
bhaskarmishratejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
bhaskarmishratejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Points for forfeit if nothing else.
Vote Placed by Nac 2 years ago
Nac
bhaskarmishratejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
bhaskarmishratejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
bhaskarmishratejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF; He never explains why big guns work best with diplomacy.