Music is good for the soul.

Music doesn't always bring people together. Like all things, it often drives them apart. For example, many of older generations do not approve of rap or rock, and argue with younger people over their tastes. Perhaps a clichï¿½, but one based on truth all the same. "- Studies show that older people who involve themselves with music show reduced levels of anxiety." Studies have shown the same with gardening, model building, reading, writing etc. Generally, it is accepted that a hobby helps reduce anxiety, and simply because music falls into this category does not mean it has any especial merit. "- Studies show that younger people who involve themselves with music are less likely to use drugs and get into trouble. [2]" Rap music often glorifies drug use, as well as gun crime etc. This cannot be denied. Whether or not it actually causes people to take drugs/commit crimes is arguable, but the positive references to drugs are there, as is the glorification of crime. There are studies that show links between rap and crime. [1] [2] [3] "- Throughout history, music has been used to heal sickness. [3]" So has prayer, dance and the practice of drilling holes in the skull. Just because something has been used for a long time does not mean it works. You will no doubt be aware of the placebo effect. Essentially, a person believes that something will make them better, and because of this they do get better. This, again, does not give music any especial merit. "- Religion, often thought of as the epitome of spirituality and soulfulness, often uses music as a way to evoke "the soul." [4]" Religion has also hindered science in many ways, and science is a massive part of who we are as human beings. Organised religion often fights against this, in the case of the "Creationism vs Evolution in Public Schools" debate, and other cases. The Church denied evolution, and denied Galileo. Perhaps one of humanity's greatest assets is our insatiable curiosity, our thirst for knowledge, our wish to know everything there is to know. Religion has stifled this on many an occasion, and as such should not be considered the "epitome of soulfulness". Also, religion suffers from the same fault as your healing argument. Just because some consider religion essential to the well-being of the soul does not mean that it is. Indeed, the rigid rules and commandments are counter-productive, preventing true self expression in many cases. "- Conversely, the Taliban, often thought of as soulless, banned music in Afghanistan during their rule. [5]" I have never heard the Taliban referred to as "soulless". Indeed, I think you misunderstand the word. You could apply many words from evil to immoral but soulless doesn't work. Many Taliban crimes were crimes of anger, rage or cruelty. These are all generally considered, as emotions, to be aspects of the soul. Soulless suggests to me a ruthless efficiency and detachment. A series of quotes prove very little, if I'm honest. To say that several intelligent/successful people like music does not prove that music is good for the soul. Van Gogh is completely different. "At an early age an extremely sensitive Van Gogh, who was prone to frequent bouts of depression," [4]. Van Gogh had mental health problems from the very beginning, which were not notably exacerbated by his art. However, the disappointment probably did harm him. Cobain's case is very different. Although he was a troubled soul, his music's popularity clearly pushed him. "Nirvana was considered the "flagship band of Generation X", and frontman Cobain found himself reluctantly anointed by the media as the generation's "spokesman." Cobain's uncomfortableness with the media attention received..." [5]. As I already noted, he moved on to steadily worse drugs as the band gained popularity, beginning heroin abuse not long after the band's entry into the mainstream. Elvis began using drugs to meet the demands of his career [6]. If it wasn't for his music career, it could be argued that he wouldn't have felt he needed them, as he didn't while he was in the army. I see no reason that the "popularity resulting from involvement in the music industry" should be separated from "music". Otherwise, this debate would have to be about the private playing of music, which would negate the majority of arguments from both sides. Considering that a crucial part of my opponent's argument speaks of how music breaks down barriers, and music's universality, I think it would hypocritical to decide that the consequences of sharing music should be ignored. My opponent's point about physicians merely supports my own argument. Some occupations either expose people to high levels of stress/upset, or lessen their ability to deal with the same. Jobs in both the medical and musical professions are clearly two of these. Not only this, but the suicide of a musician can result in "copy cat suicides" [7] [8]. So music, and what results from it, can harm not only the artist, but the listener too. After my evidence and examples, it can only be concluded that music is bad for the soul, and increasingly so as one becomes more involved, from listener to performer. [1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.allsands.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://oldies.about.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...(musician)#Death As a side note, I will not and cannot vote on this debate, as I am in the UK. I have seen that my opponent voted for himself to win every point on all his previous debates, and I ask him not to do so on this debate, in the interests of good conduct, fair play and an accurate result.