Here's an interesting debate:

It's a bit long. Excluding the Q&A section it's about 1h.
The critic side is unfortunately pretty poor, making appeal to border cases, frauds and other silly arguments that have little to do the meat of the argument.
People like British doctor Ben Goldacre, popular archenemy of homeopathy, at least has better eloquence and more cogent counter arguments.

From the proponent side instead there are presented some interesting recent studies that support the idea of water memory and how this might work more in detail.

Just finished watching the 2nd round of the debate (the rebuttals part) and it's incredible how lame is the critic against homeopathy.
99% ad hominems and appeal to authority (including Randi! My oh my!) ... if that's all conventional science has to say, I guess homeopathy is not even controversial anymore :)