There are also instances of relatively peaceful people who got the prize and became warmongers, e.g. a certain president of the us, who sent 500 drone strikes into Libya in a single year after winning the prize (among other military adventures)

How does that relate to the question in this sub thread?

Do you actually propose that they did violent things because they got the prize?

If there are as many examples of people receiving the peace prize then going on to be warmongers as there are the reverse, it suggests that the peace prize isn't really doing anything here and we're just looking at the base rate of leaders switching between peaceful and warlike actions.

No, that's a fallacy, unless you can credibly argue for a causal link, i.e. because of the prize people feel they can get away with violence.

I find that not impossible to argue, but incredible, and would want to see supporting evidence.

Yes, but that cuts both ways.

I only argue that there is a plausible mechanism, you argued in quantitative terms.

The prize may have given them political cover that let their violence go on longer

They only get the prize after stopping, so you're arguing for something more complicated: violence, then non-violence, then violence.

Possible, but not terribly plausible, IMO. And the examples proffered so far (Obama or Kissinger) certainly don't fit that pattern.