Music Theory/Music Skills classes should be mandatory course's for all students to take.

There are two points being discussed here: 1) Whether music assists in learning/retention/brain function; 2) Whether students should be required to take Music Theory/ Music Skills classes in public schools. Since the specific argument is that "Music Theory/Music Skills classes should be mandatory course's for all students to take,", I only need to produce agreement that (2) is wrong in order to prove my opponent's argument wrong ((1) would simply be moot in that case). I will continue to respond to my opponent's other points, but the truth is that those points do not indicate exactly WHY these classes should be MANDATORY. 1) The 'Ask a Scientist' archived article is anecdotal at best, it does not prove anything with regards to Music classes being beneficial to students with regards to brain function. 2) Opinion polls are inherently weaker than data based off of action, primarily because of uncertainty regarding the strength of these opinions/feelings, and secondarily because of weaker guidelines with regards to people's ranges. Performance-based data, such as testing and scoring, typically produce harder evidence. 3) My opponent's comment that 'the human brain is something we are [not] very clear on,' and the pregnant woman example simply highlight a further weakness in his argument. If we are not certain with regards to the effects Music classes would have on students' brain function, why make them mandatory? 4) To clarify my question with regards to how the studies that my opponent cites are conducted: How were they performed? What were the sample sizes? What were the biases? Were these specific classes of students coming from similar backgrounds/environments/zip codes? Were they random students strewn across the nation? Were foreign children or children of immigrants included? If these tests were not controlled, or normalized for the aforementioned items (among many more), then the data they present may be directional or specific to a particular demographic, but that wouldn't mean they are conclusive with regards to the population. 5) My opponent may not understand the theory behind statistical significance, so I'll pass on my response to that comment. 6) I'm not distorting my opponent's words. I'm simply saving space and time by referencing areas in my opponent's argument. This is not a verbal argument. Voters can easily read each person's points, so there would be no value in 'word distortion'. 7)The results obviously have not been consistently replicated. To be consistent, something would have to be relatively recurrent and reliable. The fact that studies were published that refuted the original studies clearly indicates that replication was not consistent. There's no assumption here. It's fact. 8) By my opponents own cited quote, the research regarding music lessons specifically is NEW (since studies highlighting LISTENING to music proved relatively inconclusive with regards to the effects of listening to music versus other enjoyable/mood improving activities). This study from 2004 has not been replicated. 9) As a separate point, this study also found that drama lessons improved adaptive social behavior, something the music lessons did not do. Should we make drama lessons mandatory as well? Especially considering the size of these effects (the abstract reads 'The effect was relatively small, but it generalized across IQ subtests...') 10) My opponent may wish to discuss the term 'outdated' with some scientists. Studies don't necessarily become outdated unless they have been consistently refuted by more recent similar studies or studies attempting replication. Even the Schellenberg study's abstract states that 'The available evidence indicates that music listening leads to enhanced performance on a variety of cognitive tests, but that such effects are short-term and stem from the impact of music on arousal level and mood, which, in turn, affect cognitive performance; experiences other than music listening have similar effects.' This is in direct agreement with the studies I mentioned. There are no more recent published articles on the matter. 11) There are no 'significantly high improvements', per my opponent's comment, with regards to the effects of music listening/ music lessons specifically. The high improvements from listening were not consistently replicated, and the improvements were not considered the direct result of listening to music, but rather on any mood arousal. The significant improvements detected in the NEW (aka not replicated) Schellenberg study were not large improvements, as the study itself states. 12) Physical Education is not mandatory in schools. Less than a few states have mandated PE (Illinois may be the only one), and even those states allow parents of those students to easily waive themselves out of these classes...so even those states don't technically mandate PE. In addition, physical activity does have widespread impact on both physical and mental well-being. Studies with regards to this have been consistently replicated. Non-extreme hysical activity has been shown to improve well-being, regardless of socio-economic background, race, or personal preferences. And even then, PE is not mandatory in the school system. Conclusion: My opponent has failed to indicate whether music education improves the well-being of students. In attempting to prove this, my opponent simply cited a hodge-podge of articles relating to music and intellect. These articles did not show consistency or considerable proof one way or another. The most recent of these articles reflected a minor improvement in IQ, due to music lessons for a specific demographic (6 yr olds). This study has yet to be replicated. In addition and most importantly, mandating a specific class essentially removes personal freedom. A student should not be required to take a music class if he/she (and his/her parents) prefer otherwise. These students may prefer alternative uses of their educational time allotment...alternatives which could provide similar benefits, or at least preferred benefits. The wine analogy still holds. Citizens should not be required to live a certain lifestyle just because studies state that that lifestyle may be good for them. That is the whole point of personal freedom. As long as your beliefs/actions don't infringe on mine, you can be free to live your life. Of lesser importance, students have a specific amount of time provided for public education. Any required classes result in less time for more preferred intellectual pursuits. Done.