You mention you have been taught to analyze sources. Have you noticed that this video doesn't actually say anything about "the events of 1915" (as you call it, I'll be calling it "Armenian genocide" from here on)?

Here's what the video says, with parts paraphrased and parts directly quoted (in double qoutes):

• Armenians have demands because of the "alleged genocide".
• Turks say there's another side of the story which goes untold.
• We must take an honest look at the complicated history.
• It is not a one-sided story.
• Each side suffered losses.
• European countries chipped away at the the Ottoman empire.
• Russia supported "violent revolts" in Armenia in order to decrease stability.
• The conflict got more violent during World War I, "Armenians sided against their home country".
• "Through a series of attacks, counter-offensives, relocations, and political manoeuvres, more than 2 million lives were lost. And these were not just orthodox christian Armenian lives, but muslim, christian, jewish, Turks, Arabs, and Kurds."
• "The conflict took a terrible toll on every side."
• "A brief honest review of this conflict makes it clear that there is no simple right and wrong between Turkey and Armenia. Thorough historical research would be required to fully understand this highly complex and nuanced series of events."
• We must stop looking back and focus on the next century.

Note that though the video says there's two sides to what happened, the video doesn't even try to say what either side says happened during the Armenian genocide. This video has virtually no content!

What this video does is spout platitudes and sow doubt. For all its talk of being fair and even-handed, the video is biased as can be. Saying "everyone did something bad and everyone suffered" is not being fair, not if one particular group was targeted more so than others. Saying "there is no simple right and wrong" is not being fair, not if a genocide has taken place. Saying "more research is needed" is not being fair, not if the only reason you're saying that is that you don't like the current research.

The meat of the video is this sentence (I believe):

Through a series of attacks, counter-offensives, relocations, and political manoeuvres, more than 2 million lives were lost. And these were not just orthodox christian Armenian lives, but muslim, christian, jewish, Turks, Arabs, and Kurds.

Note the subtle word "relocation" in there. It's the euphemism many people who deny the Armenian genocide use to describe what happened (even though the death marches were just a part of a bigger campaign against the Armenians).

Also note that that quote says that many people died. But the fact that other people died does not mean there was no Armenian genocide. The video mentions this to distract the viewer from what happened. As I mentioned above, the video doesn't mention what happened at all!

The video says we need to take into account the 'Turkish side', but why doesn't it say what the Turkish side is? Or is it that other people died too? If that's the case, that's a pretty weak excuse for denying a genocide.

---

I had a quick look at the website "factcheckarmenia.com" which the video advertises. I'll have more to say about that shortly.

has it?

but many redditors

doesn't strike me as a group r/askhistorians can shed much light on considering you're going for contemporary views. I think this is sort of an odd question as it's sort of a historical question but also sort of really more a meta question.

As for your ban, r/askhistorians has engaged this topic multiple times. Notice how this post asks for contrary views

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/166q40/armenian_genocide_compelling_denialist_evidence/ and he's a roundup from th faq

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/europe

and here's a recent post on the genocide (in the wake of Francis' comments). not on the wiki but it answers a lot of your question in a round about way: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32c0ql/why_does_turkey_still_deny_the_armenian_genocide/

Why has the armenian allegations become facts when the turkish are not even taken seriously?

the problem with "strong armenian lobby" is most historians actually factually agree that it was a genocide so it's less "allegations becoming facts" than facts being uncovered.

as a sidenote: i hate r/askhistorian posts that give pophistory youtube videos and ask people to talk about them (usually to knock them down) but they've appeared on r/askhistorians but of course the actual question matters given rules against soapboxing (which you're not doing now obviously could be doing but only later comments would see).

"Just asking questions" doesn't fly here.