Yes, that is true. This is the scale, there are extremists on both sides.
Extremists on Turkish side believe that Armenians massacred Turks and thats it. Extremists on Armenian side believe that Turks massacred Armenians and thats it.
Then there are those that are more in the central who believe that it either was a civil war where both sides lost many lives, and the debate is whether the word genocide applies to such a tragedy.

Usually the centrist view always prevails, but many people do not look at it that way, they try to pretend the scale is centered more on the "Turks killed Armenians" side, which just doesn't make any logical sense.

There's two sides to every story. And usually where controversies always seem to conclude is that both sides have wrongs and rights. The worst case is when there are people that claim there is no controversy to this issue, because that does not solve any problems.

It is especially upsetting to find people that try hard to pass resolutions to foreign governments about the issue and put a blanket word like Genocide over it, instead of taking it to a court where they know they would loose. The fact that such actions only make the problem more controversial and more difficult to solve and can endanger peoples' lives, such as the U.S. soldiers in Iraq who would be the ones that suffer due to cease of supplies through Turkey.

When one pushes someone in school, one would provoke him to push back. The only way to stop this push-game is for one to stop pushing. If one has pushed someone though, the actual best response for that someone is to not push back but to talk and discuss the situation with him/her.

The Armenian propagandists, that started this Armenian Genocide long ago, pushed very hard, and tried to spread this information throughout the world using fake quotes from Hitler to make it more effective, and exaggerating death tolls. The Turkish government didn't push back, in fact, it ignored such claims, thinking that no one would ever believe that the Ottoman Empire who had granted religious freedoms to many minorities and allowed their churches to stand to this day, would be labeled as perpetrators of genocide during an Armenian Revolution. For many years the Turkish government simply dismissed it and ignored it, and didn't bother doing anything about it, thinking that the truth would prevail, especially with the large threat of communism and a few coups that were a bigger priority at the time.

However, in the meantime, the Armenian propaganda had persuaded thousands of people, some with significant portions of money that could help their cause. Christians were very vulnerable to Armenian horror stories of an Ottoman Empire's Islamic wrath; some stories were perhaps true, but exaggerated, and such a story doesn't mean anyone should conclude genocide. There is a big difference between a killing and a genocide.

The larger fact remains that the Ottoman government had no policy or campaign to systematically exterminate Armenians. There were even Ottoman soldiers who were hanged after court-marshals for their negligence in protecting minorities such as the Armenians.

Many Armenians have improved their argument by claiming that the relocation order given to relocate many Armenian towns during 1915, was actually a death march to exterminate them and confiscate and steal their property and money. This argument usually fails when one finds out that Armenians in Western or Central Turkey were never ordered to relocate, even though those were usually the wealthiest Armenians.

There are Armenians in Turkey to this day, that are known as Armenians simply by their name, and were in Turkey for generations since before 1915. Another reason why this argument fails is the simple fact that it would be less time consuming to simply kill Armenians than to make them march to their death with Ottoman guards watching them. The actual reality of the situation was that they were relocated because some villages were suspected of helping the Russians by attacking Ottoman supply routes and damaging the Russian war front, which many Armenian revolutionaries did. Ottoman soldiers, in low numbers were ordered to protect the Armenians, make sure they are fed with shelter, and women and children were to be on some sort of transport animal such as cattle or donkeys so that the government would not be blamed for negligence.

These organizations such as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation were established many decades before the supposed genocide. Even though the Ottoman Empire introduced the Millet system which is the usual standard minority protection system established throughout European nations to protect minorities legally. The Armenian National Constitution which is part of the millet system approved by the Ottoman Empire established to protect Armenian self-governing rights. Later it was amended with the "Nizâmnâme?i Millet?i Ermeniyân" developed by the Patriarchate Assemblies of Armenians. Such tolerance and rights were given to Armenians; however, they wanted something better, with the help of British, French, and Russian encouragement they wanted their own kingdom, perhaps their own empire that stretched from the black sea to the Mediterranean, this is their motive to rebel.

The Social Democrat Hunchakian Party - established for the purpose of rebelling against the Ottoman government to create a unified socialist Armenian nation. Note the date it was established, which is before any massacres of Armenians occurred.

Armenian Revolutionary Federation - Otherwise known as the Dashnaks, established to rebel against not only the Ottoman Empire but also from Persia. Doesn't seem like a retaliation to genocide as some would claim to explain it.

The Ottomans had no prior hate against Armenians, they let them have their own churches and govern themselves. There were no hate speeches in the Ottoman Empire by any leaders or public figures. There wasn't even a way to identify the Armenians. So how is it possible for there to be a systematic genocide? The Ottoman Empire was the Sick man of Europe, barely standing upright with large debts and several war fronts during World War I. It was in war with the largest forces in Europe, why would 1915 suddenly become the perfect timing to perpetrate a genocide?

The reality is, 1915 was the year when many revolutionary leaders were finally arrested, symbolizing the end of the Armenian dream of a Great Unified Armenian Nation. Expressing this to world powers, would make it seem insignificant, so they had to create something that they would feel sympathy for. Yes, a genocide, with horror stories and exaggerations that would make any person with a heart want to do something to help.

Since then the Armenian propagandists around the world, have led almost a century long campaign for Turkish hatred and the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, under the cover of an excuse they call "closure". Of course that would seem honorable until you figure out that the Armenian Closure is actually reparations and land forcefully taken from the Turks through the pressure of world powers.

One simply has to attend one of their meetings to figure out what their expectations in the end are:

It's a flyer on a meeting they performed to discuss how they will reintegrate Turkish cities (cities mentioned in the picture) to Armenia when the reparations and land claims have been successful.

The Genocide Scale however, doesn't quite allow them to make such claims though. The scale is simple and clearly defined by the United Nations, which is a systematic extermination of an ethnicity, race, or religious group by a nation. The scale clearly says there is no genocide with the mountain of evidence on the Turkish side of the story which is a more centrist view and is not a denial of Armenian deaths but a reminder of Turkish deaths because of the Armenian Revolutionary Movement. The scale's voice however, is muffled because of the religious tension and propaganda power of the Armenian Diaspora.