Homeopathy Does Not Work
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
RandomTruth
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 10/16/2013 | Category: | Science | ||
| Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 709 times | Debate No: | 39043 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)
 Pro  Con --- Hypochrondriacs --- Firstly for hypochondriacs where the patient is not sick but believe they are - H provides a harmless way to provide emotional support and perhaps even a cure. The pseudoscience and actual medicine might convince a patient they are receiving drugs but in fact they are just receiving attention from a doctor. --- The Placebo Effect --- Secondly, there has been several studies comparing homeopathic medicines against placebo control groups. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... is an interesting meta study that concludes: "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." Now this study is really against H but it does seem to indicate that H is *no worse* than a placebo and in fact, possibly better. So whilst I agree with you that H doesn't actually have a clinical effect, the process of H-care where there is an attentive doctor, does have psychological benefits. And this is where I see H working. |
 |
|
Pro Ian_Scott_Wilson forfeited this round.
Con RandomTruth forfeited this round. |
 |
|
Pro Ian_Scott_Wilson forfeited this round.
Con RandomTruth forfeited this round. |
 |
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
| Ian_Scott_Wilson | RandomTruth | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: What the heck guys. Anyway, for both side forfeiting R2 and on, no conduct for either side. Con provided a logical reason for successful use of Homeopathy as a placebo and a strong source for support. Since there was no reply after that, Con gets Arguments and Sources.
Assuming an accepted scientific methodology to test the effectiveness of specific remedies was used, "Homeopathy does not work" would not be up for debate, it would either be factually true or untrue.
If not, the debate would be over the validity of the testing, not the effectiveness of the remedies.