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

My opponent literally ignored half of my last argument, as is made obvious by his points. Well, I will simply answer each of his points then: "1. Listening to music during a class helps retention/enjoyment/ and comfortablity." >> As stated in previous arguments (by ME and not by my opponent), these studies, in combination, propose that audial enjoyment of any type has been proven to improve classroom performance, for a very short amount of time. Not just music, and not for long-term retention. "2. When a student learns music, and hears it while applying his knowledge of music theory, more areas of his brain are activited." >> More areas than what? What is the comparison here? And which study refers to this specifically? I have already answered this in previous arguments. "3. If we get students to take music, not only will they start to retain more info (from something like Math class), but more of their brain will become accessible to them. Thus a Music student has an advantage over a non music student." >> This is not known to be true, and has not been proven yet. Only one study hints at it, and that study has yet to be replicated. And retention was not the exact metric compared either. My opponent is making up observations. In fact, I am unsure of whether my opponent actually read the studies he cited, or whether he just cited them after reading the first sentence of the abstract from his Google queries. "4. We can pair something like music (fun for students) and a math (not so fun), we can implement associative conditioning. The students will use more of their brain in class (because of its expansion from studying music)." >> Fun/Not Fun are subjective and relative terms. They do not pertain to this argument. I'm sure we CAN do these things. That doesn't mean they add value or that there is a real advantage. I have answered the 'using more of the brain' argument in previous arguments. "5. So why make it mandatory? Just like english, math, and geogrpahy give real world advantages to those who dont take them, Music is the same. Music increase the analytical skills of students, something only benfical." >> THERE IS NO REAL PROOF OF THIS. My opponent has not proved it. The studies he cites have not proved it, and the scientists conducting these studies have admitted that it was not proven. What else does my opponent need in order to stop referencing the same, unproven points? "6. And finally, like I stated in my first argument, making a music class apart of school for everyone brings in a CREATIVE aspect of learning rather then the constant academic feel, and guess what? Music will even help with those academic class's." >> OK. What does this have to do with our argument? >> Here's MY condensed conclusion: >> 1) There is no proof that listening to music, versus any other audial enjoyment, improves retention. In addition, audial enjoyment only improves retention for only a short period (15 or so minutes) after it has ended. The combination of studies relating to the LISTENING of music essentially arrive at this conclusion. >> 2) There is only one study which states that the LEARNING of music improves retention. This study reflected very, very mild (albeit statistically usable) improvements in IQ. The study was performed only on 6-year olds, and has not been replicated. So even with its weak findings, it should be discounted. >> 3) The government does not mandate everything which MIGHT have a SMALL positive effect on citizens. This is not constitutional, nor is it prudent. I could say more, but I have already gone over this in the last argument. Time for the voters to decide.