To encourage an open "lateral" debate on a topic of your choice. For example:
"To stop a war is not necessarily to finish it, but to finish a war is more certainly to stop it". (Jonathan V. Davis)
The "Korean War" was stopped in 1953, but the conflict has never really finished. Result - dangerous impasse.
The "Vietnam War" was finished in 1975 and the conflict quickly stopped. Result - economic growth and stability.
Which was the best outcome? Both wars incurred a terrible loss of life, about 3.5 millions killed. The "unfinished" Korean War lasted 3 years, the "finished" Vietnam War 30 years. The former, however, had a far higher "kill rate", so had to be stopped? - or, will it cost far more in human suffering in the future to finally finish it? Discuss.
(Please remember: Your non-partisan hypothesis only. This website is not about debating the vices and/or virtues of Capitalism, Communism, nor about any other "ism". It is about promoting dichotomy by peaceable means.)
Copyright 2005-2018. Lateralthinking.Org. All rights reserved.
Forum page for readers of the website