when it comes to diplomacy big guns work the best

RebuttalsPro'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. ArgumentsAs 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 RelationsLet 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 WarIIA. Civilian Casualties & National SecurityThe 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 DisadvantagesIf 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 EffectsWar 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 WeaponryIIIA. Blast EffectsMissiles 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. SpeedFast 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. ConclusionThe resolution is negated. References[1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://ramblingofnada.wordpress.com...;[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...;