Allopathy (Modern medicine) should be replaced by Homoeopathy

=== My opponent's burden of proof === The reason that I didn't go into much depth in my previous round was that I presumed it obvious that the burden as presented (and accepted by my opponent) didn't match with the arguments that he provided. Apparently, that clarity was not there - so allow me to make it clearer. My opponent is proposing the outright abolition of modern medicine as a method of treatment. Not merely that we should reduce its use, or take homeopathy seriously, but actually abolish any method apart from homeopathy. Providing lots of scare stories about modern medicine does not match this burden, for the simple reason that it is equally possible to provide lots of scare stories about homeopathy - people who put their trust in homeopathic treatment, and for whom it didn't work. Take this example, which I quoted in my "ban homeopathy" debate: "a woman had relied on homeopathy during a trip to Togo in West Africa, which resulted in a serious bout of malaria. This meant she had to endure two months of intensive care for multiple organ system failure. In this case, the placebo effect offered no protection. That's the harm. " . http://www.1023.org.uk... In other words, my opponent has provided instances of modern medicine having bad side-effects, but I have provided instances of homeopathy doing the same. Playing "example tennis" (e. g. talking about homeopathy during the Spanish flu as if one examples proves a rule) does not constitute proof for this very reason. Furthermore, my opponent took the position that even if homeopathy didn't work, that somehow makes it better than modern medicine. Notice that even my opponent's criticism focuses on how modern medicine has bad side-effects - in other words, the treatment works, but has unfortunate (and occasionally unpredictable) extra effects that downplay the effectiveness of the treatment. Nonetheless, the treatment works on a more rigorous scale - which is more than can be said for homeopathy. Notice further that, despite making a grandiose claim in the first round that homeopathic treatment has a "definite law of nature", he did not bother to elaborate further on this assertion in his final round. === Defence of my previous arguments === It is a shame that, rather than use logic and reasoning, my opponent instead resorts to calling me a clod and "rattle-headed". I presumed that, given that he's clearly read my previous round on banning homeopathy, he would know precisely why I believe homeopathy to be dangerous. I did not elaborate further precisely because it was a throw-away comment not directly related to this debate. Rather than waste space on points not directly relevant to this debate, I will instead point readers to my previous debate here: . http://www.debate.org.... But remember: showing homeopathy to be dangerous is not my burden here; it is merely to show that modern medicine need not be abolished, which I have already done. As I said in the previous round, the downsides of modern medicine means only that " we need to extremely careful about which medicines we allow to be used in hospitals . " My opponent's suggestion that this entails that everyone should become a heavily-trained physician is facetious, and unnecessarily so. It only requires that medical licensing bodies take extreme care as to which medicines are allowed at hospital, not that every individual take such extreme caution. My opponent's claims regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy, from his quoting of the Spanish flu and use of the Times of India article, show that homeopathy needs to be taken seriously. Congratulations to him on that. But in this debate, such sources are worthless - he argued that modern medicine should be replaced by homeopathy, which requires sufficient attack on the fundamentals of modern medicine, rather than simply quoting specific cases where it has failed. For these reasons, he has not matched his burden, whereas I have done.