Should All Kids Learn A Music Instrument

Pro waived last Round.

Pro waived the last round.

Pro waived the entire debate in the final round

Con argues that not all children want to learn an instrument and thus should not have to, Pro argues that playing a musical instrument will is beneficial but Con refutes this by arguing that if a child does not have the passion to learn an instrument, he won't experience these benefits anyway (presumably due to lack of motivation). Pro conceded this rebuttal by waiving the last round, therefore arguments to Con

Not very convincing arguments on either side. Should children refuse mathematics because they lack passion for the subject? Pro correctly points out that music study is good for human development but doesn't engage with Con and concedes half his time. Conduct point for concession.

So pro reasons lack of passion and friviolusness in regard to NOT learning/playing? a musical instrument
And con reasons promotion of craftsmanship (helps in future regard?) incentive in achievement and hand eye cordination he also said "Scientists say this" but no link or proof of his claim.
Pro rebutts about lack of passion not helping in con's arguements and may indeed be counter intuitive.

I award points to no one as i feel there are no convincing arguements or reliable sources on either side and both sides had acceptable grammar and conduct.

There is not enough detail here to cast a vote either way. While I admire your enthusiasm of both sides. Facts should be presented, you should provide sources to warrant your claims, and you should try and explain how your different values and arguments contrast.

This seemed to be like both sides were giving a short, undirected opinion at each other, more depth is needed.

Con provided a good point, Pro provided a good point, then Con refutes with the same point as before.
Equal conduct because Pro was able to admit when he lost.
No sources were used.