Controversial Thoughts: Valid or No?

Now, let me start off by saying that this is not a thread for posting your controversial ideas. Please, do not do so.

Alright, to the meat of the discussion. We all hear of controversial ideas surround different events like 9/11, the War In Iraq, and the list goes on. But my question is, is such a controversial idea valid in an argument?

Now, it is controversial because it is against what the common thought (or what the government tells the media) is going on. So if you think that Mickey Mouse caused 9/11 that would be controversial, as stupid as it may be. But, just because something is controversial, is it made an invalid or crazy point?

I'll give an example.
Let's say that the plane crash into the Pentagon was planned by the government to create hype for war and not to arouse suspicion. Now, initial videos say that it was an attack, but then someone releases a video saying "OH MY GOD IT WAS FAKE THEY ATTACKED THEMSELVES AHHHHH!!!!" and the video contains "evidence" that is contrary to what was originally shown. It shows several other explosions (much similar to the 9/11 videos) depicting a controversy. But, would such a video be valid evidence?

We accept anything smacked with a stamp by some official company as proof of practically anything. But, if something is posted by some user online, is it made valid because of videography or research done by subtle institutions?

So, the question(s) for you to answer is/are:

What would you define controversial as?

Can you utilize controversial evidence in an intelligent argument as valid support?

Are controversial videos valid evidence without any validation of their source?

Does government maintain the right to determine what is or is not controversy?

Does media supply controversy to the people or do the people supply controversy to the media? In other words, do we make the story or does the media?

Lastly, should controversial ideas no longer be considered outlying ideas that have no validity in society but more a valid argument to common belief?

 

I define controversial as anything going against the grain of the socieitie's - in general - choice.

You can utilize it, but that's not the question; the question is: will the other party(ies) accept this as evidence?

No.

We make stories, the media blows them out of proportion - that is, in the United States.

I don't think so. I could be better on wording this or typing my opinion, but my eloquence is running away from me. I think that controversial ideas should be more critically analyzed. They shouldn't be considered a valid argument unless there is substance to it.

 

I agree with Sythe, some of these questions answer themselves.

Would not the definition suffice?

Again the argument would not be sound if what you are using is controversial evidence if your controversial evidence has no definite source..

Is this not propaganda?

You talk as though the "media" is some sort of higher being, not human in nature. The controversial stories you see must come from somewhere, the media wouldn't show such stories unless it was for their own personal gain or for the personal gain of a wealthy company or person.

What the society thinks/believes IS common belief.

 

But nobody knows the REAL truth except those that performed this act of terrorism. So people rely on what they believe naturally, which MAY be true.

 

Anything should be accepted in a debate if sufficient evidence is provided. However, I do not think that that is the case in the example you have provided.

 

No, you rely on the evidence. And you draw points from the evidence itself.

If I say that bugs bunny "flew the plane" into the pentagon, by looking at the pentagon tape, it would be an opinion. Not a theory.

 

If you say the person in the plane is white and so is bugs bunny, isn't that evidence to your claim?