The Instigator
SPARTANTEAMLOGIC
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Homeopathy-It works

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 62964
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

SPARTANTEAMLOGIC

Con

Rules for debate-
Scientific/theoretical proof required, no pointless religious claims without proof (For both sides)
Anyone can accept
Please elaborate on any proof taken and please cite your sources. Wikipedia is acceptable (as long as sources seem legit)

My argument- There is no scientific proof whatsoever that Homeopathy has medicinal properties and the reason some people get cured is a pure Placebo.
kasmic

Pro

Thank you for the debate and good luck.

My argument is that homeopathy works. Albeit not often, they still work as a placebo. Placebos have effects on people. Sometimes positive. I can then only conclude that it works.

"Sometimes a person can have a response to a placebo. The response can be positive or negative. For instance, the person's symptoms may improve. Or the person may have what appears to be side effects from the treatment. These responses are known as the "placebo effect."

"There are some conditions in which a placebo can produce results even when people know they are taking a placebo. Studies show that placebos can have an effect on conditions such as:"

"Depression, pain, sleep disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, and menopause."

"Research on the placebo effect has focused on the relationship of mind and body. One of the most common theories is that the placebo effect is due to a person's expectations. If a person expects a pill to do something, then it's possible that the body's own chemistry can cause effects similar to what a medication might have caused."(1)

Like Con, I am very skeptic of homeopathic methods, especially compared to regular medicine. However, the resolution is "Homeopathy-It works." This is easy to prove as placebos are known to work, perhaps not constantly, but they work. Con even concedes "There is no scientific proof whatsoever that Homeopathy has medicinal properties and the reason some people get cured is a pure Placebo."

Homeopathy may not have medicinal properties but due to the placebo effect, it works.

The resolution stands

(1) http://www.webmd.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SPARTANTEAMLOGIC

Con

Thank you for accepting the debate.
Now, you have raised a fair point in the topic stating that resolution is "Homeopathy-It works," and that placebo's to tend to work. However what we need to understand is the definition of "It works." Lets take medicines that are scientifically proven to work for example. Say an antacid. Does it work most of the time? Yes. Does it occasionally not work? Yes as some cases may be too extreme or not related. So the entire point of a "working" medication is one that serves its purpose and fixes the person, and fixing what it was meant to fix, means it works. Pro states that
"There are some conditions in which a placebo can produce results even when people know they are taking a placebo. Studies show that placebos can have an effect on conditions such as:"
"Depression, pain, sleep disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, and menopause."
But Homeopathy is also given for other diseases, literally all of them. So if placebo's don't even work MOST of the time then we cannot consider them to in reality work. As there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of other diseases that Homeopaths give medications for. Even though these are but a few examples, homeopathy/placebos could not really treat every single disease. If we do say that homeopathy works than we also may say that simply feeding a person balls of sugar can cure them, thus allowing them to "work." If that is your viewpoint, then please look at it logically. So even drinking coke is good for our teeth if we believe so? Fanta truly gives us proteins and minerals? Oh and don't forget protein bars or frozen food. These products actually have ill effects. Homeopathy may be bad for some people with diabetes (sugar balls being used). Pro implies that if we believe it works then it does. One cannot simply say that. In order to work, the item in discussion must have
1) Legit evidence
2) Logical reasons (scientific or otherwise)
3) Successful tests
As Homeopathy does not fit into any one of these categories (even thought to "work" you need to fit into all three) we cannot really say that Homeopathy works. It isn't viable, it definitely isn't even close to 75% sure and it has no scientific base whatsoever.

As placebo's cannot be considered "to work" neither can Homeopathy.
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttals:

Con says “we need to understand is the definition of "It works."

Again I would like to point out that the Resolution is “Homeopathy- It works,” It is not “homeopathy- it works medicinally,” or for that matter “homeopathy- it works due to medical properties.” I argued previously that homeopathy works as a placebo, not due to medicinal properties. Being that the resolution does not include work in which way, I only have to show that it works in at least one way.

Con says “So if placebo's don't even work MOST of the time then we cannot consider them to in reality work.”

The following is a history of our understanding of how effective placebos are. “Placebos first came to the general public’s attention in the 1950s. It was discovered that patients who were given harmless sugar pills and told they were medicine would often report themselves cured. In an influential article first published in 1955, Harvard researcher Henry Beecher concluded that between 30 and 40 percent of any treated group would respond to a placebo. Now, half a century later and beginning a new millennium, we are finding that the actual success rate is much higher—closer to 60 percent, and in some cases as high as 75 percent. Remarkably, it’s not unheard of for placebo effects to exceed those of the normally prescribed treatment. The implications of this are staggering.”(1)

Turns out that placebos work most of the time, so according to cons qualification of “working” they work.

Con states that “Pro implies that if we believe it works then it does. One cannot simply say that. In order to work, the item in discussion must have
1) Legit evidence
2) Logical reasons (scientific or otherwise)
3) Successful tests
As Homeopathy does not fit into any one of these categories (even thought to "work" you need to fit into all three) we cannot really say that Homeopathy works. It isn't viable, it definitely isn't even close to 75% sure and it has no scientific base whatsoever.”

I have already provided evidence of this both in this round and last that meet the criteria that con has set forth. My opponent has rejected the scientific backing of placebos.

Con says “As there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of other diseases that Homeopaths give medications for. Even though these are but a few examples, homeopathy/placebos could not really treat every single disease.”

I do not have the burden of proof to show that homeopathic methods can cure every disease, just that it works at least against one. Which as I presented last round “There are some conditions in which a placebo can produce results even when people know they are taking a placebo. Studies show that placebos can have an effect on conditions such as: Depression, pain, sleep disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, and menopause."

I would also like to point out that there are many things Conventional medicine also cannot cure, which is evident as people still die everyday, even when they have conventional medicine. Con is asking for me to prove something about homeopathy that also cannot be proved by conventional medicine.

Conclusion:

I again conclude “Homeopathy may not have medicinal properties but due to the placebo effect, it works.” I will add that Placebos can be described as “working” as they have been know to produce the desired result. Sometimes up to %75 of the time.

The resolution stands.

(1) http://www.learnmindpower.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SPARTANTEAMLOGIC

Con

SPARTANTEAMLOGIC forfeited this round.
kasmic

Pro

Extended...
Debate Round No. 3
SPARTANTEAMLOGIC

Con

Sorry for that,I have been incredibly busy recently. Barely got enough time to write this one.

So the placebo effect is on the basis of the patient truly believing that the placebo works. However as many people now know that Homeopathy is in reality a placebo they will tend to look the other way, and if they consume it it will have no effect on them. When we say "it works" we mean that the object fulfills it's function regardless of exterior factors. Placebos are based on the exterior factor of believing.
Pro states that "I would also like to point out that there are many things Conventional medicine also cannot cure, which is evident as people still die everyday, even when they have conventional medicine. Con is asking for me to prove something about homeopathy that also cannot be proved by conventional medicine. "
All conventional medicine for certain diseases which people still die to are purely in the experimental process. Also even if we have a cure for every disease people will still die due to murder or other physical wounds that are not given attention. Please do not rebut with saying "Death is a disease" And in the rare case that conventional medicine not working, either the wrong one has been given OR it has been given too late.
Pro also states that " I will add that Placebos can be described as "working" as they have been know to produce the desired result. Sometimes up to %75 of the time."
75% of what? Please be more specific. And also the website you have linked does not seem very scientifically motivated. It was extremely vague on it's description. And the desired effect for me or someone else who is educated on this topic will not be achieved, at all. So in reality we can't even consider them to work as placebos are not medicinally speaking working.
Pro says
"I would like to point out that the Resolution is "Homeopathy- It works," It is not "homeopathy- it works medicinally," or for that matter "homeopathy- it works due to medical properties." I argued previously that homeopathy works as a placebo, not due to medicinal properties."
But when we talk about a certain item working, we must prove that it does it's job, rather than working on pure belief. If let's say I truly believe that breathing air can cure my stomach ache, and it does, we must consider Air to be a viable working medicine. In reality there are no official national hospitals that accept homeopathy as a medicine that works. So even if the resolution is "It works" I have shown to you that it doesn't and no person educated on this topic think it does.

Please stop turning this debate into a debate on the definition of "works" The main reason I couldn't find time to reply was I did not think I could fit in such a minor debate, one where I thought we could discuss the scientific basis of homeopathy and it in reality working other than the Placebo effect. This debate has turned into a new resolution of "Do Placebos work?" which is clearly not the intended resolution. Thank you.
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttals:

Con say’s “the placebo effect is on the basis of the patient truly believing that the placebo works. However as many people now know that Homeopathy is in reality a placebo they will tend to look the other way, and if they consume it it will have no effect on them.”

Actually, studies have shown that placeboes have been known to work even when the patient knows they are taking a placebo. (1) In fact one study concluded that “Placebos administered without deception may be an effective treatment” (2)

This proves cons statement “Placebos are based on the exterior factor of believing” False.

Con says
All conventional medicine for certain diseases which people still die to are purely in the experimental process. Also even if we have a cure for every disease people will still die due to murder or other physical wounds that are not given attention. Please do not rebut with saying "Death is a disease" And in the rare case that conventional medicine not working, either the wrong one has been given OR it has been given too late.”


People die from diseases all the time while being treated with conventional medicine. I was not rebutting with “Death is a disease” (nice try at a strawman) I was stating that modern medicine does not have a cure for everything. In the last round you said homeopathy/placebos could not really treat every single disease. I was rebutting that the same thing is true about conventional medicine. Unless con believes there is a cure for cancer…

Con asks “75% of what?” Of being a cure.

“Furthermore, the placebo effect is no small or insignificant statistical aberration. Estimates of the placebo cure rate range from a low of 15 percent to a high of 72 percent. The longer the period of treatment and the larger the number of physician visits, the greater the placebo effect.”(3)

Con says
the website you have linked does not seem very scientifically motivated. It was extremely vague on it's description. And the desired effect for me or someone else who is educated on this topic will not be achieved, at all.”

I find it ironic that my opponent is unimpressed by my sources. I am unimpressed by his entire lack of sources. Con seems unwilling to concede that science supports the fact that placeboes work.

Con says “Please stop turning this debate into a debate on the definition of "works"

I did not turn this debate into a debate on the definition of “works,” you did that when you made the resolution.

Con says that he wanted a debate where “we could discuss the scientific basis of homeopathy and it in reality working other than the Placebo effect.”

You should have made that the resolution… I also doubt the sincerity on this claim as you stated earlier in this round that in regard to placeboes “that it (placebos) doesn't (work) and no person educated on this topic think it does.” Clearly you did not think that an educated person would engage in this debate….

Con says “This debate has turned into a new resolution of "Do Placebos work?" which is clearly not the intended resolution.”

I accepted this debate with the resolution presented. As I am pro, I am free to defend that resolution in any way I choose. I have chosen to show that homeopathy is a placebo. Placebos have been known to cure. Placebos therefore work. Homeopathy then is known to work. This is simply logic. The resolution stands.

(1)
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(2) http://www.plosone.org...
(3)
http://www.psychologytoday.com...



My link from the last round no longer seems to work. I will post it again here.

http://www.learnmindpower.com...

Debate Round No. 4
SPARTANTEAMLOGIC

Con

SPARTANTEAMLOGIC forfeited this round.
kasmic

Pro

I accepted this debate with the resolution presented. As I am pro, I am free to defend that resolution in any way I choose. I have chosen to show that homeopathy is a placebo. Placebos have been known to cure. Placebos therefore work. Homeopathy then is known to work. This is simply logic. The resolution stands.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by natalie_9 2 years ago
natalie_9
This is true that Homeopathy works. A research article "Father of Human Pharmacology - adidarwinian" published online has revealed.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I really do not know what that is. I do know that eating right, drinking proper drinks, speaking words of life will keep you out of the doctors office.Worked for me for over 30 years.I diod not know 30 years ago that it would work for sure. But I did what my Father told me to do and it has kept me healthy.And that is available for all.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
@Burncastle, Sure I agree. But the resolve is not "medically speaking, Homeopathy works."
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
Btw, medically speaking, a particular method or medicine does not "work" if the placebo effect is the only thing that helps the patient.
Posted by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
I was applauding your ability to poke a hole in the debate.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
What?
Posted by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
Damn.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
I was super bored and came across this debate and saw that TNO5 said that "there is no possible way Con can win this." I accept that challenge.
Posted by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
I was going to accept, but after looking, I failed to find a single source scientifically backing up homeopathy... I agree with TN05 that Pro would have an extremely difficult time winning this debate.
Posted by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
Oops, I mean Pro. Homeopathy is useless.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SPARTANTEAMLOGICkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
TheSquirrel
SPARTANTEAMLOGICkasmicTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Homeopathy works. The evidence is against it. However, Pro did a very good job defending the resolution, though I am dubious about that defense in general. Pro also gets sources for using them.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SPARTANTEAMLOGICkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff