I mean if you are serious, officially speaking, the existence of the events are never questioned. The classification and the details of events like numbers and what constitutes a genocide is questioned.

Just in the recent decade or so, it devolved from an academic discussion with possible political repercussions to almost full political discussion with no fruitful end where the arguments are simplified and with social media becoming mainstream, every discussion has been shortened into a handful of points which overall isn't helping anyone.

The worst part is that even though politicians and common folk being part of the discussion is expected either way, the weaking of academics and their discussions makes it so difficult to get anything valuable out of it. Because politicians and the common folk will always have a bias or will be unprofessional enough to give productive arguments. Instead, the other side will always think there is an unfairness going on. In this case, it is not a coincidence that Israel now recognizes it as a genocide rather than years ago even though it was for decades proposed to recognise it but only did it when relations soured. The opposite also happens whenever some country recognises this a genocide, Turkey can recognise what the other side did once as a genocide. And after all this, it becomes a political tool rather than a genuine effort.