Controversial Topics and the Internet

It is interesting how choosing a topic and researching go hand in hand. After reading the chapters, I found that I usually do the opposite. I often research various things before choosing a topic. There are so many things I can talk about because I have such a diverse interest. I have to find out more about my interests before committing myself. The one thing Chapter 7 should have touched on more is the appropriateness of a topic. For example, the speeches that usually yield the most trouble are usually persuasive speeches. People, including myself, find it very difficult to stay away from controversial or political topics especially in a classroom setting where the audience is usually captive and very diverse. In my previous public speaking class back in high school, it was difficult to watch persuasive topics on abortion, the death penalty, and socialized health care. These topics should not be allowed in persuasive speeches because it is like "arguing apples and broccoli". The different arguments against and for a specific topic are based on two totally different perspectives that are both positive and often are not related to each other. For example, abortion is about women's rights and humanity's right to live at the same time...both totally different topics about the same issue. In addition, these topics are too emotional and the logic is based on subjective things such as religion. We should stay away from these when we do our persuasive speeches... but then what ever will we talk about?
I didn't realize how similar researching for a speech is similar to researching for a paper. It truly is just as lengthy and just as detailed. It is becoming more apparent that a diversity of sources is the best method for obtaining valid and fair information. I liked how the chapter warns us to be aware of internet sources because they may not be the most truthful information available to us. Anyone with a computer can put anything they want out there. I would like more specific tips on how to detect a valid internet source from an invalid one. Though the book does talk about writing down who wrote the site and finding out when the document was created...etc, I don't feel that is a reliable method to tell the good sources from the bad ones. Blogs need to be addressed specifically. What if I find a political blog written by a politician on a congressional issue I'm speaking about. Should I exclude it because it's an opinion piece? OR include it because the politician is a primary source? Also, how do I tell that it is truly him that wrote it. The validity of internet sources should be a chapter on its own and blogs should be covered thoroughly. My rule of thumb on sources is that if it looks questionable, don't use it. The book even warns about using statistics with caution. I don't think using statistics is necessarily a negative thing. People just need to address the context and circumstance in which the data was produced. Too many people misinterpret the information and use it to relate to topics that have no precedents. Statistics are good we just need to be more aware of what we're using it for.