Thailand’s military, ultra-nationalists and politicians have ignited a dangerous cycle of aggression and deception in the Cambodia-Thailand border conflict, culminating on June 23, 2025, by wielding fallacious arguments — red herrings, contradictions, ad hominem attacks, strawman distortions and double standards — to falsely pin blame on Cambodia.
As debaters from the Institute for International Studies and Public Policy (IISPP) Debate Society, we are committed to equipping debaters with the tools to dismantle such flawed reasoning through evidence-based discourse.
This crisis, sparked by Thailand’s unprovoked killing of an unarmed Cambodian soldier on May 28, lays bare Thailand’s internal power struggles, with Cambodia unjustly scapegoated to mask domestic turmoil. For our debaters, exposing these fallacies is not just an academic exercise but a clarion call to advocate for justice, urging a diplomatic resolution grounded in international law to restore Cambodia’s dignity and regional stability.
Historical Roots and Thailand’s Unprovoked Aggression
The Cambodia-Thailand border dispute, rooted in colonial-era maps from 1907, centres on territories like the Preah Vihear Temple and Tamoan Thom Temple. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed Cambodia’s sovereignty over Preah Vihear in 1962 and its promontory in 2013, yet Thailand’s persistent challenges fuel nationalist fervour. On May 28, Thai soldiers launched a brazen assault at dawn, killing an unarmed Cambodian soldier — wearing shorts and stationed near a border post in the Emerald Triangle (Preah Vihear province, Cambodia, and Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand).
This unprovoked attack, which Cambodia’s Ministry of National Defence condemned as a violation of their sovereignty, was falsely justified by Thailand as “self-defence” to the international community. This fallacy of false justification seeks to whitewash Thailand’s aggression, despite our troops’ peaceful presence on sovereign soil, backed by ICJ rulings.
Thailand’s provocations predate this incident. In February 2025, Cambodian troops and families entered Tamoan Thom, singing the national anthem to affirm sovereignty, only for Thailand to brand it a provocation. Thai media amplified aerial photos claiming Cambodian incursions in April and May, ignoring our rightful presence.
Cambodia views the May 28 killing as a calculated escalation, with Thailand’s “self-defence” narrative — bolstered by briefings to 42 countries’ defence representatives on June 7 — designed to deflect blame. For our debaters, this deceitful tactic is a lesson in challenging narratives that distort truth to evade accountability, urging students to uphold Cambodia’s rightful stance with unwavering clarity.
Fallacy 1: Red Herring—Diverting from the Core Issue
On June 10, Thailand’s army supreme commander proposed cutting electricity and internet supplies to Cambodian border provinces, claiming it would curb cross-border scam operations. This is a blatant red herring, diverting focus from Thailand’s aggression — killing an unarmed soldier and imposing unilateral border closures.
Cambodia’s anti-scam commission, led by Prime Minister Hun Manet since February 2025, renders Thailand’s proposal irrelevant and an overreach into our sovereignty. The timing — days after Thailand restricted border crossings on June 6–7, slashing hours at Sa Kaeo (from 6am–10pm to 8am–4pm) and banning tourists at two Chanthaburi crossings — exposes this as a coercive threat, not a crime-fighting effort. When Cambodia delayed reopening crossings to mitigate economic damage, Thailand accused us of blocking Thai goods, ignoring its own initial closures. This misdirection paints Cambodia as the aggressor, shielding Thailand’s violations.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s rejection of the utility cutoff highlights her rift with the military, but Cambodia sees this as a hollow gesture to conceal Thailand’s belligerence.
For debaters, this fallacy is a masterclass in spotting distractions. Thailand’s scam narrative sidesteps accountability for its violence and economic coercion, a tactic our students must dismantle by refocusing on Thailand’s aggression. By exposing this red herring, debaters sharpen their ability to cut through irrelevant arguments, championing Cambodia’s call for justice.
Fallacy 2: Contradiction—Undermining Diplomatic Credibility
Paetongtarn’s June 10 pledge for diplomatic and bilateral solutions, dismissing the utility cutoff, was starkly contradicted by her subsequent actions.
She labelled Cambodia’s social media posts — transparently showcasing defensive troop movements, including 122mm RM-70 rocket launchers — as “unprofessional”.
Cambodia’s Ministry of National Defence, led by Tea Seiha, clarified that our artillery targets no one’s land but our own, reassuring citizens amid Thai aggression. Paetongtarn’s attack on our communication style, rather than addressing our concerns about Thailand’s violence and border closures, betrays her diplomatic rhetoric. Cambodia’s sovereign right to communicate its policies during a crisis is non-negotiable, especially when countering unprovoked attacks and utility threats. Her contradictory stance — promising peace while condemning our legitimate actions — erodes trust and exposes Thailand’s duplicity.
This hypocrisy intensified when Cambodia threatened to ban Thai fruit and vegetable imports on June 16–17 unless Thailand reopened borders normally within 24 hours. Senate president Hun Sen warned of closing all crossings, a defensive response to Thailand’s initial closures.
Thailand’s foreign ministry spokesperson called this “not the act of a good neighbour,” ignoring Thailand’s role in sparking the economic standoff. For debaters, this inconsistency is a glaring vulnerability. Thailand’s claim of seeking peace while criticising Cambodia’s sovereign actions reveals a fractured stance. Our students must master exposing such contradictions, crafting arguments that underscore Thailand’s unreliable diplomacy and bolster Cambodia’s justified resolve.
Fallacy 3: Ad Hominem—Attacking the Messenger
A leaked 17-minute phone call on June 15, 2025, between Paetongtarn and former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen revealed her calling him “uncle” and criticising her military’s conduct after the May 28 clash.
On June 19, she apologised to Thais, framing the leak as a breach of trust by Hun Sen, accusing him of prioritising popularity over diplomacy: “His primary concern seems to be his popularity, disregarding the impact on relations with other countries”.
Former Thai foreign minister Noppadon Pattama echoed her claims, calling the recording a breach of diplomatic norms for Cambodia’s political gain. This ad hominem fallacy attacks Hun Sen’s character, sidestepping the call’s content, where Paetongtarn admitted internal discord and urged Cambodia to reopen borders first — despite Thailand’s initial closures.
Cambodia views recording such calls as standard for accountability, a practice seen globally, like the Macron-Putin talks before Russia’s 2022 Ukraine invasion.
The call exposed Thailand’s fractured leadership, yet Paetongtarn’s response deflects to Hun Sen’s alleged untrustworthiness. Cambodia’s pursuit of ICJ intervention on June 2–3 and June 14–15, which Thailand rejects, underscores this fallacy: Thailand claims to champion legality and peace but shuns international scrutiny. For debaters, this tactic is a lesson in misdirection.
By refocusing on Thailand’s aggression — killing an unarmed soldier and closing borders — students can dismantle personal attacks, exposing Thailand’s attempt to shift blame from its own failures and reinforcing Cambodia’s call for justice.
Fallacy 4: Strawman—Misrepresenting Cambodia’s Defence
Thai ultra-nationalists and media accused Cambodia of provoking war by deploying troops and RM-70 rocket launchers after May 28. When Cambodia positioned these defensively to counter Thai threats — including the killing of an unarmed soldier and potential utility cutoffs — Thailand branded us the aggressor.
Yet, when Cambodia fired back equally to deter further attacks, Thailand fell silent, unable to sustain its narrative. This strawman fallacy misrepresents our self-defence as warmongering, ignoring Thailand’s role in sparking the conflict. Our troop movements were a direct response to Thai aggression, not an escalation. Thailand’s briefings to 42 countries’ defence representatives on June 7, distributing 11 documents to claim transparency, distorted our actions, painting Cambodia as the instigator despite our defensive posture.
Cambodia’s Ministry of Interior ordered heightened surveillance and emergency preparations post-May 28, including intensified border patrols and evacuation plans for our nationals in Thailand, to safeguard our people. Thailand’s silence after our measured response exposes the fragility of its accusations.
For debaters, this fallacy underscores the need to contextualise actions. Cambodia’s response — stationing troops on our soil and firing back when necessary — is a sovereign right to protect our people, not a call to war. Our students must master exposing such distortions, emphasising Thailand’s aggression as the catalyst, to craft arguments that restore truth and defend Cambodia’s honour.
Fallacy 5: Double Standards—Hypocrisy in Sovereignty Claims
Thai ultra-nationalists have fuelled anti-Cambodian sentiment, discriminating against and expelling Cambodian workers. When Cambodian leaders, including Hun Manet, urged these workers to return home for safety, Thailand accused Cambodia of overstepping, claiming we have no right to recall our citizens. This double standard is stark: Thailand asserts its sovereignty by closing borders, threatening utilities, and attacking our troops, yet denies Cambodia’s right to protect its people.
Cambodia views this as hypocrisy, as Thailand demands respect for its actions while condemning ours. The expulsion of our workers, coupled with Thailand’s protests against our call for their return, reveals a nationalist agenda that scapegoats Cambodia to rally domestic support.
This hypocrisy extends to Thailand’s narrative. On June 6, Thailand’s military signalled readiness for a “high-level operation” to counter alleged Cambodian violations, yet when Cambodia responded with troops on “full alert,” Thailand accused us of escalation.
For debaters, this double standard is a potent critique. Thailand’s actions — killing an unarmed soldier, closing borders and targeting our workers — contradict its claims of neighbourly conduct, while Cambodia’s responses are defensive and legitimate. Students must highlight these inconsistencies, building persuasive cases that expose Thailand’s hypocrisy and uphold Cambodia’s righteous stance.
Thailand’s Domestic Chaos, Cambodia’s Burden
From Cambodia’s perspective, the border conflict is less about territorial disputes and more about Thailand’s internal turmoil. The 2023 Thai election and 2024 dissolution of the Move Forward Party birthed a fragile Pheu Thai-military coalition, wielding nationalist rhetoric to unify a divided public. The military exploits border tensions to assert its relevance, while Paetongtarn’s government, reeling from ultra-nationalist pressure, deflects criticism by vilifying Cambodia.
The June 15 leaked call reveals this divide, with Paetongtarn criticising her military, yet publicly aligning with nationalist demands to avoid political fallout. Cambodia, pursuing ICJ arbitration, is cast as the aggressor to mask Thailand’s instability.
This dynamic imposes an unjust burden on Cambodia. Our defensive measures — deploying troops, threatening Thai import bans, enhancing surveillance and banning Thai media — are responses to Thailand’s aggression, not provocations. The June 18 Phnom Penh solidarity march, led by Deputy Prime Minister Hun Many, showcased national unity against Thai hostility, yet Thailand accused us of stoking nationalism.
Cambodia’s ICJ commitment, contrasted with Thailand’s refusal, exposes Thailand’s hollow claims of legality and peace. Our actions counter an aggressor who initiated violence and economic coercion, yet we bear the burden of de-escalation.
An Appeal for Clarity and Accountability
Debaters must uphold the highest standards of logic and evidence. Thailand’s fallacies — red herrings, contradictions, ad hominem attacks, strawman distortions and double standards — not only inflame tensions but also block resolution. The May 28 killing of an unarmed Cambodian soldier, unilateral border closures, utility threats and worker discrimination reveal Thailand’s aggressive intent, while its ICJ refusal betrays its claims of justice.
Cambodia’s defensive measures and pursuit of international arbitration embody a commitment to peace and legality, starkly contrasting Thailand’s deceit.
For IISPP debaters, this conflict is a crucible for mastering critical analysis. By unmasking Thailand’s fallacies, we sharpen our advocacy, preparing to lead with clarity in complex debates. Cambodia demands a diplomatic resolution grounded in international law, not nationalist posturing.
Until Thailand confronts its internal divisions and engages honestly, the burden of de-escalation falls unjustly on us — but Cambodia stands unyielding, defending our sovereignty with evidence, logic and resolve. Our debaters must rise to this challenge, wielding reasoned arguments to hold Thailand accountable and champion a just resolution that honours Cambodia’s rights and dignity.
Cheng Ousa is the president of the Institute for International Studies and Public Policy (IISPP) Debate Society and a junior researcher at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Royal University of Phnom Penh. Mey Minith is the vice-president of the IISPP Debate Society, and a Junior Researcher at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. The views and opinions expressed are their own.
