Homeopathy-It works

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 have1) Legit evidence2) Logical reasons (scientific or otherwise)3) Successful testsAs 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...