The Instigator
Ian_Scott_Wilson
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Darface
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Homeopathy Does Not Work

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ian_Scott_Wilson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 538 times Debate No: 38435
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Ian_Scott_Wilson

Pro

I hold the position that Homeopathy, and all of its attributes, do not work and have no basis in science. By accepting this debate you will respond with a confirmation AND your first argument. I will rebut that in round 2, and you will rebut that in round 2. In round three I will make my last (And second) rebuttal, and you will make yours. Thank you, and enjoy :D
Darface

Con

Homeopathy Listeni/G6;hoA0;miG2;;4;pə_2;i/ (also spelled homoeopathy or hom"opathy; from the Greek h"moios- P05;_6;_9;_3;_9;`2;- "like-" + p"thos `0;^0;_2;_9;`2; "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like, according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.[1] Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more than a placebo,[2] and homeopathy is widely considered a pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6][7]
Hahnemann believed that the underlying causes of disease were phenomena that he termed miasms, and that homeopathic remedies addressed these. The remedies are prepared by repeatedly diluting a chosen substance in alcohol or distilled water, followed by forceful striking on an elastic body.[8] Dilution usually continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remains.[9] Homeopaths select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories, and by considering the totality of the patient's symptoms, personal traits, physical and psychological state, and life history.[10]
The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense,[11] quackery[12][13][14] or a sham,[15] and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical.[16] The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted[17] and lack any biological plausibility.[18] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[19][20] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[21][22][23][24] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are not only scientifically implausible[21][25][26][27] but precluded by the laws of physics.[28]
Debate Round No. 1
Ian_Scott_Wilson

Pro

Well... yeah, that was my point. I am PRO the motion that homeopathy does not work. By accepting the con, and yet arguing my position, I clearly still hold the lead while the burden of proof rests on you.
Darface

Con

Darface forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
Ian_Scott_Wilson

Pro

I rest my case. Vote for me.
Darface

Con

Darface forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 3 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Ian_Scott_WilsonDarfaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con mistakenly accepted based on a double negative (i.e. Con was technically not for the idea that homeopathy doesn't work--effectively meaning that they were pro for homeopathy working).