Users debate what evidence defines genocide in Gaza

**SHORT SYNTHESIS**

The discussion centers on what constitutes evidence of genocide in Gaza and how users evaluate competing claims about the conflict. The Reddit threads frame this as a question of epistemology—what sources, data, and reasoning lead people to particular conclusions—rather than as settled fact. One thread explicitly asks what evidence convinced users of genocide; another asks whether a user's analytical framework for evaluating Gaza conflict claims and misinformation is sound.

Users across both threads engage with the underlying tension: how to assess casualty figures, intent, and proportionality when sources conflict, when definitions of genocide are contested, and when both sides of the conflict produce competing narratives. Some commenters cite death tolls and humanitarian conditions as primary evidence; others emphasize the difficulty of establishing genocidal intent or question whether available data supports that legal threshold. The discussion remains polarized, with users disagreeing on which sources are credible, how to weight different types of evidence, and whether the framing of the question itself presupposes a conclusion. No consensus emerges on what "convincing evidence" looks like in this context.