Argument Summary

For the "Yes" side, the main focus was on multiple reports from Southeast Asian media, which consistently cited a statement by a Cambodian lieutenant general claiming Thai strikes had occurred. This statement had already been disputed by the Thai government. Most Western outlets had not confirmed the strikes, though some repeated the Cambodian claim. Reuters confirmed damage on the ground while citing official sources, and the Thai government acknowledged conducting strikes on July 24–25, though without confirming the exact timing.

The "No" side argued that there was no definitive confirmation of a July 24 strike prior to market creation. They pointed to the lack of clear timing in official statements, conflicting accounts, and the absence of direct or first-hand evidence. They also highlighted that much of the "Yes" case relied on information that emerged after the market had already been proposed. Additionally, they criticized some of the "Yes" evidence as being uncorroborated by multiple credible sources, and called out users for not doing due diligence in verifying claims. The lack of physical or visual evidence also played a major role in their case.

Coming Up

Having summarized the argument, we now look at how Polymarket stepped in to clarify the market.