Yes. First of all, defining our terms, 'chemical imbalance' is an invalid medical diagnosis. The National Health Institute of the US clearly states that ordering an MRI, CT scan or any other test of the structure or composition of the brain is NOT a medical practice regarding depression. 'Obsolete' by definition of the Cambridge dictionary means 'no longer in use, needed, or relevant because a newer, better, or more advanced alternative has replaced it'. This is in perfect agreement with our situation, which is that you cannot justify the cause of a person who is suffering or who has a very tough timeframe that leads to depression as being simply that they have something wrong with the chemical composition of their brains. This is because it would have been maybe a decent explanation in medieval times when we did not understand nor have studies linking mental habits or the predisposition of people to maintain bad self-love habits to depression and well-being. Nowadays, when we have all the modern explanations like a person's background, their childhood status, their family situation or recent traumas who are well-documented, we cannot simply go back to the medieval 'chemical imbalance' explanation, which is the exact definition of the word 'obsolete'

I do not necesarily agree with how it is a real bodily thing. The Metropolitan Behavioral Health of the US has specifically said after research "While neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine help regulate mood, energy, and pleasure, research shows no consistent evidence that people with depression simply lack or misproduce these substances", clearly showing that depression is not caused by a literal imbalance of the neurotransmitters. Also, me saying that social causes or personal habits can be linked does not have to mean I accuse them of 'a personal failing'. It does not mean it is their fault, if I have a bad depression because for example a family member died or because I've been fired from an abusive job, it is by no means my personal failure or something I could have controlled. And by stating that certain actions could have been taken, like mental exercises or others in order to HELP the person does not mean I am saying it's their mistake and that they deserve to be in a depression. The fact that we acknowledge that some of them could have been prevented does not mean we think less of the person or that we do not want to help them, if someone got to the hospital because they have been playing with a chainsaw doesn't mean we don't treat them, but it still allows us to advise them to not do it further, for their OWN good so that it doesn't repeat.

I fail to see how antidepresssants being prescribed by family doctors counters my points or promotes yours, because you do not explain and also you fail to respond to my arguments which are destined to label something as obsolete, while promoting better alternatives for the good of people. You choose not to provide alternatives or even explanations, you just keep repeating your point of arguing the definition. And I have also countered your definition as well, because it does not mean useless, it means it's been replaced by something more advanced, something better. And I have clearly provided the modern, study-backed and better explanations, which are also more suited to the general good of the population. If chemical imbalance were true, it would mean that we need to prescribe chemical hormones to the entire depressed population, or else we can't help them. What happens if the 'imbalance' reappers? It's much more sensitive, productive and better to understand the social and emotional causes in order to help people and to help them help themselves.

I fail to see how this simple idea helps people accept help. Telling them that something is wrong with their brain and they need to medicate versus telling them that professional help of mental well-being tactics can help long-term/permanently definitely does not sound better. And also just because you feel that obsolete sounds too harsh does not mean that the objective definition of the word is not met extremely well, especially after what I've argued. And if the shaky explanation is meant to tell people that they cannot get better without medication and that it may even come back and affect them until they medicate again (not even to get started on how antidepressants and chemical hormones can even affect people even MORE or lead to ADDICTION), then yes, it means it can not only NOT do some good, but worse, it can do some BAD or even some EVIL if the following addiction or problems are worse.