This is going to be a very nuanced point, so if you already have your mind made up on "Pro this" or "anti that" you are going to miss it. To me this is clearly a bleeding edge legal and technological phenomenon so if you hold a solid position either way, we are not in the same page at all. Prediction markets are going to be an issue in general in congress for the next years to come, and in specific cases in the courts for the next decades, it's silly to think that we, a random individual commenting on an internet forum, have the right answer at this nascent time, I recommend if you are coming into this with a premade opinion on the subject, to have a suspension of disbelief and enter into the discussion on the grounds that there's not a right answer at this time.
On to the nuanced response:
>"First - I can not comprehend how you could possibly have a charitable interpretation on the war point and how it might have a net positive."
>"I would like to hear a single positive for being able to make BTC bets on killing people."
This has been marked by yourself as a single point, but there's two distinct asks here, which I believe you are conflating. The latter of which is easy to answer, the first one is clearly to be decided and no one knows at this time (and could go either way).
First you ask how it might be a "net positive", that is that its positives outweigh the negatives. Then you ask to hear a single positive. Forgive me for overspelling the obvious here if the contradiction is already clear, but I must dwell on this as it seems to be precisely what's causing you to "not comprehend".
It is trivial to show a single positive, it can be done so in two manners, first showing that a single positive is possible, and then a bit harder would be to argue that said positive is definitely a positive and not a negative, in isolation.
On the first type, to merely show that an individual positive is possible, I could do so in three different manners, one which is on good faith and relevant to the actual events/discussion, e.g: "on assasination events, victims can get information on their safety and act accordingly.", the issue is that this might distract you into discussing the specifics of what I just said instead of following the greater argument.
A second way would be to show an individual positive that is technically so, but obviously would not be used to argue anything else, which avoids the reader from being defensive, e.g: "It's fun for people to gamble". It's worth noting that this is a single positive in isolation.
Thirdly, I can argue anything really, and it is at least a candidate, mere refutation the fact is irrelevant as we are for this point only considering that there could be positives: e.g: "It might solve AGI/string physics", even in the exercise of finding a silly positive effect, we nevertheless find that it's technically possible that prediction markets might fund scientific research.
On the second type, to show that such positive effect is actually positive, I don't think there's much grounds to deny here that there exist individual positive effects. So I won't try to waste much effort, here, I think a stronger argument would be to argue that the net effect is negative, which again is distinct from being able to point out a single positive.
Regarding the net effect of markets on war or assasination attempts, I do not hold an answer, do you? Do you know for a fact whether it's a net positive or a net negative? Somewhere in the US courts, legislation and lawyers there seems to be a different answer. The journalists and a large amount of readers seem to be of course against it, but they don't hold much more power or say in the matter than the bare minimum any citizen gets by democratic vote, and to that extent, the power they hold is just over the capability to affect legislation for companies that have a global audience, and are just headquartered in your country as a base of operations, and would immediately move to another jurisdiction, or give way to a competitor in another jurisdiction if the conditions were to turn too unfavourable.
Personally, I don't make bets on wars, or assasination attempts because of the possibility that they may cause negative effects, it is sufficient and I consider the burden of proof to be inverted, but by no means do I hold the belief that it is a net negative. And I still reserve the right morally and legally to participate in these markets if for some bad turn of luck I were to be caught in the middle of a war, in the same manner that I might reserve the right to own and bear arms.