Câu hỏi:
06/01/2025 6Sách mới 2k7: Bộ 20 đề minh họa Toán, Lí, Hóa, Văn, Sử, Địa…. form chuẩn 2025 của Bộ giáo dục (chỉ từ 110k).
Quảng cáo
Trả lời:
Sample 1:
Whether people should be able to freely choose the sports or activities they want to partake in has become a topic of discussion. While some people argue that dangerous sports should be restricted, I firmly believe that the decision should lie with the players.
On the one hand, it is true that dangerous sports can come with several risks to the participants. Players always face life-threatening perils once they decide to take part in extreme sports, especially those that involve highly specialized gears, namely skydiving, motor-racing, or mountain climbing. However, experienced participants are, though rare, chances are that the required equipment can malfunction, thus causing the participants fatal wounds or even deaths. For instance, in May 2021, a first-time skydiver and his experienced instructor were hospitalized due to parachute malfunctions in McLaren Vale, Australia.
On the other hand, I firmly advocate for the idea that players should have the autonomy to partake in any sport. To start with, one’s well-being is first and foremost within their individual liberties, therefore, banning a person from chasing their passion is unreasonable, especially when they have fully acknowledged the threats that come with it. For adrenaline junkies, extreme sports give them pleasure. Preventing them from sports such as skydiving or snowboarding equals taking away their source of happiness. Moreover, in reality, the preparation for these dangerous sports is always painstaking in order to reduce the chance of mortality. For example, one would need to pass a skydiving certification course if they wish to skydive solo.
In conclusion, while extreme sports are dangerous in some ways, I am of the opinion that they can be beneficial to the players’ mental well-being and thus should not be prohibited.
Sample 2:
There is an ongoing debate about whether governments should impose a ban on dangerous sports or allow people the freedom to engage in any sport activity they choose. While some advocate for the prohibition of perilous sports, I believe that individuals should have the freedom to participate in sports of their choice.
Supporters of banning dangerous sports have some reasons for their position. First, they argue that certain activities pose grave risks, leading to severe injuries or fatalities. Activities such as skydiving, car-racing, mountain climbing, or paragliding involve a high probability of accidents that can strain healthcare systems and families emotionally and financially. Second, there is a valid concern that passionate fans might mimic these sports without proper safety measures, risking their lives and potentially causing accidents. For instance, individuals fascinated by car-racing might replicate risky behaviors on roads, surpassing speed limits, and causing accidents, putting themselves and others at risk.
However, I contend that people should have the liberty to engage in sports activities, provided they do not directly harm others. Initially, it is their personal autonomy to choose which sports to partake in. Hence, prohibiting someone from pursuing their passion seems unjustifiable, especially if they are fully aware of the associated risks. Moreover, defining what constitutes a “dangerous sport” is not always clear. Every sport inherently involves some level of risk, including seemingly common sports like football. Imposing an outright ban on specific sports might seem arbitrary and unfair, especially when risks are subjective and can differ among individuals.
In conclusion, while there are valid concerns regarding the dangers associated with certain sports, I believe individuals should have the autonomy to engage in activities of their preference as long as their actions do not pose direct harm to others.
Sample 3:
Although some argue that governments should outright outlaw dangerous sports, others insist that individuals should be free to participate in any activities they desire. Both views have valid points, but I believe the latter opinion is more convincing as a total banning of such sports would violate individuals’ rights and liberties.
Those who advocate for banning dangerous sports argue that these activities put individuals and others at risk of severe injury or even death. For instance, extreme sports such as skydiving, bungee jumping and base jumping involve a significant risk, where accidents often occur. In some cases, the injuries sustained from such accidents can be life-threatening to both participants and bystanders. The government would be considered unreliable if it allowed complete freedom concerning any danger for these activities. For this reason, governments should be granted the authority to these activities to a certain degree, both for the public's safety and as a demonstration of their responsibility.
On the other hand, proponents of total freedom regarding dangerous activities argue that individuals should have the right to engage in sports they enjoy. Many people find participating in extreme sports an exhilarating experience that gives them a sense of accomplishment and pushes them to their limits. Banning these activities would deprive individuals of the opportunity to engage in activities they are passionate about. Therefore, I believe there should be only mild regulations in extreme cases where the activity may also affect bystanders, such as prohibiting spectators from standing too close to racing tracks.
In conclusion, although governments must safeguard their citizens, people also have the right to pursue their interests without interference from the state. Thus, moderate restrictions are appropriate, but a complete prohibition on extreme sports is unreasonable.
Sample 4:
Opinions diverge widely on whether dangerous sports should be prohibited due to the potential hazards to participants. While I understand this argument, my view is that people should have the right to participate in any sport they choose.
The principal reason in favour of a ban on extreme sports is that such activities are usually accompanied by a high chance of serious injury or death. A mountain climber, for example, is always in danger of a fatal fall even with the protection of climbing equipment. Furthermore, some of these sports not only render the players injured, but also the cheering spectators. Take car racing for example. In Japan in 2004, a Formula 1 race car crashed and debris from the crash flew into the crowd and caused serious injuries to both the racer and spectators.
However, I believe that people should be free to take part in any sport that they choose, and it would be wrong to stop climbing enthusiasts from challenging themselves and enjoying the invigorating experience of standing on top of a mountain peak. If these sports were previously banned, the world would not have witnessed the amazing feat of the first official ascent of Mount Everest in 1953. In addition, those who participate in these activities have to undertake rigorous training and experience for long periods of time to ensure they are in peak physical and mental condition in order to take up these hazardous sports. Therefore, the concern of the risk element becomes somewhat reduced.
In conclusion, it would be wrong to ban extreme sports, and I think that people should have the right to take part in any sport they want for the aforementioned arguments.
Sample 5:
It is commonly believed that extreme sports should be strictly prohibited due to the huge number of risks involved. In this essay, I am going to demonstrate that risk factors are present in all sports before suggesting that people should have the right to play any sports they want.
Advocates of banning certain sports may argue that their inherently dangerous nature may threaten lives. As extreme conditions are a prerequisite for these sports, risks like equipment failure render players more vulnerable than in other sports. For example, skydivers who freefall from enormous altitudes seem more prone to injuries or even death than players of ordinary sports. However, in reality, all physical activities carry a certain degree of risks, and it is difficult to judge which one is more hazardous than the other. For instance, acute pains like ankle sprains are prevalent in football or basketball as a result of intense practice drills and frequent matches, but it is unlikely that these sports will be banned given their popularity. Besides, people must undergo rigorous tests to ensure they are physically and mentally conditioned before participating in dangerous sports. Therefore, concerns over the safety of extreme athletes are quite irrelevant.
I believe that people should have the autonomy to play any sports they want, regardless of their danger. This is because they can already decide for themselves whether to take part in a number of dangerous non-sport activities. For example, those who reach the legal drinking age are free to purchase alcohol, the excessive consumption of which may have fatal consequences. If personal freedom is championed with regard to things like alcohol, it is argued that it should be extended to sporting pursuits as well.
Instead of an outright ban on extreme sports, I believe there are ways to mitigate the risks attached with them. Sports associations could impose an age limit for extreme athletes in order to ensure only people who are fully developed physically are allowed to participate. Another solution is to bar players from practicing or competing without the necessary protective gear. These measures would strike a happy medium without intruding people's personal freedom.
In conclusion, I believe people are entitled to play dangerous sports if they want, and certain restrictions in lieu of a ban would help ease the safety concerns.
Sample 6:
Sports are undeniably a vital part of our daily lives. While some people partake in casual sports, others choose to enhance their adventurous experience with thrilling sports. This has raised plenty of concerns among the authorities about whether to ban such activities or not. Both supporting and disagreeing views have their own legitimacy regarding safety and financial gains.
First of all, dangerous sports could potentially harm people’s well-being due to their unprotected characteristics and cost substantially to manage. While regular sports are played in regulated stadiums, fields, or under sufficient supervision from guards, action sports often happen in the wild where there is limited connection with the outside world. Take scuba diving for example, it takes place under water located near remote islands. Should any sudden accident happen, it would be difficult to contact emergency services. In addition, the local governments have to make an enormous effort to clean up coral reefs after every scuba diving tourism season. Therefore, playing sports in the wild might be costly to manage properly.
On the other hand, adventurers who participate in extreme sports are often professionals capable of protecting themselves against harm. Unlike common sports, these niche activities are only practiced by well-trained people with knowledge of navigational skills. For instance, jungle trekking is included in the routine training of soldiers to improve their combat abilities. In addition, trekking is also an important aspect of conservationists who seek to revitalize a region’s eco-tourism industry which could in turn bring more economical gains to all inhabitants there. Thus, under moderation, dangerous sports could potentially be safely handled and gain economical benefits to a wide range of people from different aspects of life.
In conclusion, although the raising concerns about well-being and finance about adventurous sports are legitimate, all variables should be thoroughly considered to balance safety and financial interest from all parties involved.
Sample 7:
In recent times, there has been a growing discourse on whether governments should enforce a ban on perilous sports. While some argue that such a prohibition is necessary for the safety of individuals, others believe in the importance of personal freedom to engage in any sports or activity. In this essay, I will examine both perspectives before presenting my own stance on the matter.
On the one hand, advocates for banning dangerous sports contend that it is a crucial step to safeguard participants from potential injuries. They argue that certain activities, such as extreme skiing or BASE jumping, pose significant risks to life and limb. Implementing a ban, they believe, would reduce the incidence of accidents and alleviate the burden on healthcare systems caused by sports-related injuries.
On the other hand, proponents of personal freedom argue that individuals should have the autonomy to choose their activities, regardless of the perceived dangers. They posit that engaging in risky sports can instill a sense of responsibility and discipline. Additionally, some argue that the thrill and adrenaline rush associated with dangerous sports contribute to personal growth and character development.
In my view, while safety is paramount, individuals should have the freedom to make choices about their own well-being. Education and awareness programs can be more effective than outright bans, empowering people to make informed decisions about the risks they are willing to take. This approach maintains a balance between personal freedom and societal responsibility.
In conclusion, the debate over whether governments should ban dangerous sports revolves around the tension between individual freedom and public safety. While a ban may seem like a protective measure, promoting education and responsible decision-making can be equally effective in mitigating the risks associated with perilous sports. Ultimately, finding a middle ground that respects personal autonomy while addressing safety concerns should be the focal point of this discussion.
Sample 8:
Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others believe that people should have the freedom to engage in any sports or activities. Both perspectives have their merits, but I agree with the latter view.
On one hand, those who believe that dangerous sports should be banned argue that such activities pose significant risks to participants' health and safety. Players in extreme sports like skydiving, motor racing, or mountain climbing face life-threatening dangers every time they participate. For instance, activities such as bungee jumping and base jumping require participants to engage in high-risk maneuvers that could result in severe injury or death. Moreover, many extreme sports, such as boxing, promote violence, potentially encouraging aggressive behaviors, especially in impressionable young children. Exposure to violent sports can lead to imitative behavior and increased instances of bullying and aggression among school-aged children, causing long-term psychological harm.
On the other hand, proponents of allowing people the freedom to engage in any sports, myself included, argue that individual liberties should be respected. Banning dangerous sports is seen as an infringement on personal freedom and choice. People have the right to pursue their passions and make their own decisions about the risks they are willing to take. Preventing individuals from participating in activities they enjoy, especially when they are aware of the potential dangers, is considered unreasonable. Furthermore, participants in extreme sports often undergo rigorous training and acquire extensive experience, which significantly reduces the risks involved. For example, climbers like Alex Honnold spend years mastering climbing techniques and understanding rock formations, ensuring they are in peak physical and mental condition to tackle hazardous sports safely.
In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the risks associated with dangerous sports, I am of the opinion that individuals should have the freedom to choose and pursue their passions, provided they are fully aware of the potential dangers involved.
Sample 9:
While some support the freedom to play any sports, others advocate a ban on extreme sports due to their dangerous nature. While there are certain merits to such a ban, I believe that freedom of choice in sports is a right that should not be violated.
On the one hand, I understand why a proposed ban on extreme sports could be a sensible argument. The main objective of this regulation is to safeguard the well-being of participants, as there is always an inherent risk in extreme sports. In fact, there have been cases of serious injuries or even deaths in such sports as bungee jumping or skydiving. Even though the policy dictates the use of protective gear, there is always a risk factor involved in case of failure to comply or equipment malfunction. In light of this, a ban on extreme sports is expected to minimize the risks by altogether prohibiting people from taking part in such sports in the first place.
On the other hand, I believe that people are free to decide for themselves what sports they can do. Geographically speaking, it would be extremely challenging to enforce this kind of ban. Many extreme sports, like free fall and cave diving, occur in places off the beaten track and without police patrols nearby. This would definitely present a nuisance to law enforcement officers in identifying and putting a stop to incidents of the new law’s violations. Secondly, those who do extreme sports are often informed of the involved risks as well as safety regulations in advance. Thus, it does not mean they would venture into a dangerous sport without any knowledge of the potential hazards, or advanced training. For instance, if one wants to try skydiving, one has to register for a professional first, and those at the beginner’s level can only skydive in the presence of experienced divers.
To conclude, while a case could be made for extreme sports’ ban, I am convinced that people are at liberty to decide whether they should engage in a sport or not.
Sample 10:
It is becoming more and more popular these days for people to participate in extreme sports. While there are some people who believe that everyone should have the right to take part in such sports, I believe that the government should ban these dangerous activities.
On one hand, many people may argue that an outright ban on dangerous sports by the government would be an infringement upon people’s freedoms and their right to choose how to live their lives. While some may view these kinds of activities as being reckless fun pursued by thrill-seeking adrenaline junkies, other people gain a lot of personal benefit and fulfilment from certain extreme sports. There have even been many cases where extreme sports have saved particular athletes from a wasted life of drugs and alcohol, allowing them to channel their energy into a more worthwhile pursuit. By focusing on developing themselves through performing high risk activities, many athletes have managed to turn their lives around for the better.
However, not only do extreme sports place the participants at a high risk of serious injury, but also innocent bystanders and impressionable young children. These days, social media platforms such as Facebook, Tik Tok, and Instagram, are full of videos containing extreme sports and people performing risky behaviour. These types of videos can be highly influential, particularly on young people who try to imitate the behaviour and end up injuring themselves and others. By banning extreme sports, governments are helping to protect the lives of thousands of young people around the world who put themselves at great risk of injury, hindering their chances at developing their full potential in other fields of sport, academia, or career.
In conclusion, while some believe that everyone has the right to choose what activities they partake in, I believe it is the government’s duty to protect its citizens from harm, and consequently they should ban extreme sports.
Sample 11:
As some sports pose greater dangers to individuals than others, many people suggest that they should be prohibited. However, in my opinion, people have the autonomy to play any sports they want and thus governments should not intervene in such athletics.
At first glance, it sounds logical that a ban on all dangerous sporting activities is advisable. This results from the fear that such sports could lead players to serious injuries or even fatal consequences. The loss of lives appears to be horrible enough to think of calling a halt to partaking in such adventurous activities.
On second thoughts, however, what I believe to be illogical is the unacceptable violation of individual freedom if governments prohibit extreme sports, especially when the following factors are taken into consideration. First, there is no fixed concept of “dangerous sport”. What is hazardous to some people is not hazardous at all to others. This is similar to leaving home for school or work every day, which actually places people at risk of having traffic accidents or suffering from severe air pollution. But it is clearly not a viable option for governments to ban everyone from leaving home. Second, the main purpose of playing sport, whether dangerous or not, is to have fun, recreation and entertainment. Governments are established to serve the general public rather than make efforts to stop people from entertaining themselves. A great number of people, particularly athletes, find it impossible to live without strong sensations from extreme sports. Third, there are a multitude of solutions to mitigate the risk of engaging in dangerous sports instead of forbidding them. What governments can do is, for example, to limit participants by age and health condition or to issue standards of safety and protection.
Briefly, I am more supportive of the view that the issue concerned should remain a matter of free choice.
Sample 12:
Many think that the government should take an active stance of banning those sports which are life-risking while many still believe that the government should not hinder the freedom to do or to play any sport. Banning a sport can be a hugely debatable topic as banning a particular sport can put a halt to numerous people who are an expert in that particular sport. Both sides have valid arguments to take forward their notion but let’s take a tour of these arguments before concluding.
To begin with, every activity or any sport which we play in our life involves some sort of risk. The probability and the possibility of the risk may vary from sport to sport, but whatever we do may indeed involve physical risk or any other sort of risk. Many sports involve various physical injuries but banning them because of these injuries may sound weird and useless. For instance, games like football can sometimes cause foot injuries. The sport cricket can cause wrist or leg injury, but we cannot simply ban these sports for the safety of the player. Moreover, every player’s ability is tested before they participate in any sport. They are trained physically as well as mentally to fit into a particular sport.
Simultaneously, banning a sport can appear to curtail individuals' right to choose. Everyone has their own preferences, and the government should not impose bans on personal choices unless those choices harm others. Besides, banning a sport is more prudent to mitigate the risk factor and increase safety precautions to lessen the stress and burden.
To conclude, I would state that banning a sport is not the only solution to decreasing the risk. There could be many ways in which you can simply decrease and minimize the risk factor.
Sample 13:
Health and safety have become the top-most priority in every arena, whether it is the working arena or in the sporting arena. Nowadays there is a tussle between two different notions, i.e growing demands for banning dangerous sports, whereas many still believe that the government should not hinder the freedom to do any sport. So, let’s first place ourselves in the position of these two-sided people and then conclude.
To begin with, it is comprehensible that dangerous sports involve or can cause injuries or even death which is the unsought result for any sport. This physical torture or severe injury can even affect the minds of the audience and bystanders. Moreover, other sports promote the behavior of violence not only among players but can also cause it among the audience.
On the other hand, we have more compelling reasons according to which the government should not hinder the freedom of players. Many players believe that some risky sports involve adventures that can give them a platform to improve. Without risking one cannot improve oneself. Thus, many people believe that these adventurous sports can improve a player to a greater level. For example, mountain climbing is a kind of adventurous sport in itself. Once accomplished it gives a sense of pride and instills the quality of persistence and patience throughout our life. Furthermore, the players are trained according to the needs of the game. They are tested physically and mentally before being allowed to participate in any dangerous game.
To crown it all, I would state that some changes regarding safety should be made in a particular sport from time to time but banning it may affect the very spirit of sport.
Sample 14:
There is a world of concern regarding various dangerous sports that can risk the life of an individual player. Various arguments are supporting the ban on these life-risking sports whereas there are other compelling arguments against the banning of the sport. In my opinion, banning a sport is not appropriate, as it undermines the very spirit of the activity.
On the one hand, there are many reasons which explicitly explain why these sports should not be banned. Firstly, banning these dangerous sports is like banning the players from practicing their freedom. A government cannot hinder the freedom of an individual player. Many sports players find new zeal and enthusiasm when they play these sports. They develop themselves accordingly and enhance their quality of determination and persistence.
Additionally, these sports involve a lot of safety measures and set up which ensures that nothing could happen to the player. These safety measures should be ameliorated and changed with time and demand to ensure the full-fledged of a particular player. To summarize, instead of banning a sport, the government should invest more in the safety measures of an individual player.
Sample 15:
The contentious issue of whether governments should restrict dangerous sports pits the importance of public safety against the sanctity of individual freedom. Advocating for a harmonious resolution, this essay will delve into the necessity of protective measures and the virtues of personal choice, aiming to demonstrate that a judicious blend of regulation and liberty can safeguard participants while respecting their autonomy to engage in risk-laden activities.
Proponents of governmental intervention in dangerous sports argue that the inherent risks, such as those in extreme mountaineering or motor sports, demand oversight to prevent fatalities and serious injuries. They highlight the societal cost of emergency responses and medical care, asserting that thoughtful regulation can alleviate these burdens. For example, the introduction of mandatory safety gear and comprehensive training programs could significantly diminish life-threatening incidents, illustrating how proactive safety measures can bolster participant security without necessitating outright bans. Additionally, such regulations could promote a culture of safety, encouraging more people to participate with confidence in these activities.
On the flip side, supporters of unrestricted access to sports champion individual autonomy, stressing the importance of personal responsibility and the right to assess one's own risk tolerance. They contend that engaging in high-risk activities often leads to unparalleled senses of accomplishment, resilience, and personal growth, which are difficult to achieve in less challenging environments. The ethos of adventure sports, characterized by participants willingly embracing risks for the thrill and challenge, exemplifies this viewpoint. Furthermore, the economic benefits accruing from tourism and professional competitions in these sectors highlight the importance of preserving such freedoms. Advocates argue that these activities not only support local economies but also enrich cultural diversity and global competitiveness in the sporting arena.
In conclusion, though safety in extreme sports is crucial, outright bans impinge on personal freedoms. A balanced approach, incorporating stringent safety measures and education, best ensures participants' well-being without curtailing their liberty to engage in such pursuits, aligning public safety with individual rights.
Sample 16:
The ongoing debate over regulating perilous sports strikes a chord between safeguarding public welfare and championing individual rights. This discourse posits that while ensuring safety is paramount, the essence of personal freedom cannot be overshadowed. By examining the merits of both government oversight and the preservation of autonomy, this essay endorses a nuanced stance that values both safety protocols and the liberty to engage in such sports.
Advocates for regulation argue that the unpredictable nature of dangerous sports warrants government intervention. They underscore the tragedy of accidents in activities like base jumping and bull running, where the thrill can swiftly turn fatal. The proponents of this view suggest that structured regulations, such as mandatory safety courses and equipment checks, could drastically lower these risks. A pertinent example is the regulated skydiving industry, which, despite its inherent dangers, has seen a decrease in accidents due to stringent safety standards and mandatory training sessions. Such measures demonstrate that risk can be managed effectively without eliminating the sport altogether.
Contrastingly, champions of unbridled access to sports argue that such pursuits are fundamental expressions of freedom and personal challenge. They emphasize the transformative power of confronting danger, citing the personal growth experienced by individuals who climb Everest or surf giant waves. These experiences, they argue, are invaluable, fostering resilience and self-awareness. Moreover, they highlight the economic impact of adventure sports, which contribute significantly to local economies through tourism and events. The success of community-based initiatives in remote areas, where adventure sports have revitalized local economies, stands as a testament to the positive ripple effects of maintaining open access to these activities.
In sum, while the concerns for safety in extreme sports are legitimate, outright prohibitions compromise individual freedom and stifle potential benefits. A balanced approach, emphasizing enhanced safety measures alongside the safeguarding of personal liberties, presents a pragmatic solution. Such a stance not only ensures participant safety but also respects the intrinsic human desire for adventure and self-discovery.
Sample 17:
As extreme sports have grown in popularity, many individuals contend that it is bad policy for the government to forbid risky athletic events. The freedom to engage in hobbies may be compromised if all harmful activities are outlawed, despite the fact that the government has absolutely no influence whatsoever over the sports that people choose to engage in in their own leisure.
First off, since life is the most important resource, the government should step in if there is a sports event that poses a risk to spectators while also posing a hazard to players. This is true even if doing so limits one's freedom. For instance, fighting competitions should be outlawed because they promote violence and a very primitive outlook on life. How can seeing two people choke, punch, and slam each other to death be entertaining? Fighting should be restricted to the gym as a form of exercise and self-defence alone. Restricting individuals from participating in this type of activity can lower their risk of suffering lasting injuries in sports-related mishaps.
Nobody can, however, definitively determine if a sport is risky enough to be outlawed. It is unreasonable to forbid a certain sport by policy since every sport has a particular set of skills that must be mastered, and each person is capable of handling them differently. For instance, climbing Mount Everest is typically viewed as a perilous activity, but for a professional mountain tracker with experience climbing difficult mountains, it may just be a casual hobby. Therefore, rather than outlawing certain sports, the government should create workable alternatives like safety regulations and particular licenses for extreme sports.
The question of whether governments should forbid risky sports is debatable because it is their responsibility to control high-risk activities in order to protect the public from serious injury. Regarding individual freedom, it should be up to the individual whether they want to engage or not in risky sports, provided that they are proficient and fully aware of the hazards involved.
Sample 18:
It is true that there is widespread concern over the practice of extreme sports, to the extent that some people argue that they should be outlawed by government legislation. While nobody should underestimate the risks, I would argue that people should be free to practice such sports if they so wish.
On the one hand, critics of dangerous sports give strong reasons why governments should impose an official ban on such activities. Firstly, they argue that such a measure is necessary on safety grounds. There have been numerous incidents where members of rescue services have had to put their own lives at risk to save extreme sports enthusiasts who are in life-threatening situations. Secondly, it is necessary at times to infringe on personal freedoms because people who lack the necessary experience or who are not in the peak of physical condition sometimes take up dangerous sports. Such irresponsible behaviour can only be prevented by banning these sports.
On the other hand, I concur with those who argue that people should be free to do extreme sports, although I believe it is necessary for individuals to abide by the safety rules. One reason is that the imposition of sensible safety measures has been proven to minimize the risk of accidents and injuries. For example, all sports which carry a significant element of danger, such as scuba diving or paragliding, should be supervised by an experienced and professionally qualified instructor. Another factor is that there is now a range of essential sports gear to protect those who practice dangerous sports. Such equipment ranges from safety ropes and helmets to water- resistant clothing.
In conclusion, it seems to me that dangerous sports should be permitted, although those who take part have a responsibilty to adhere to the recommended safety procedures.
Sample 19:
Opinions are sharply divided over the issue of whether dangerous sports should be banned. Some advocate for prohibition due to significant safety concerns, while others argue for the preservation of individual autonomy, emphasising that people should have the freedom to pursue any sports or activities they choose. Personally, although I acknowledge the legitimate concerns about safety, I believe that the principle of individual freedom should prevail.
Those in favour of banning dangerous sports often cite the significant risks involved such as severe injuries or even death. Activities like cliff diving or extreme mountain biking carry inherent dangers that often lead to severe or even fatal accidents. What is more, many impressionable young people are not fully aware of the consequences of participating in such activities. For these reasons, banning extreme sports is necessary to prevent unnecessary harm and the emotional and financial impact on the participants as well as their families.
Conversely, advocates for personal freedom believe that everyone should be free to choose their activities, regardless of the associated risks. They argue that high-risk sports can be incredibly rewarding and offer personal growth and an unparalleled adrenaline rush. They further point out that with meticulous training and implementation of strict safety measures, the dangers of these sports can be considerably reduced. For instance, with thorough training and stringent safety protocols, the risk of skydiving can be substantially lowered, allowing participants to enjoy these activities responsibly.
In my view, while safety is crucial, it should not overrule people's freedom to choose their sports. Banning dangerous sports outright might prevent some accidents, but it also strips away the right to make personal choices about risk-taking. A balanced approach, where high-risk sports are regulated through strict safety measures and informed consent is a more reasonable solution.
Sample 20:
The popularity of programs such as American Ninja Warrior has led to growing interest in extreme sports like rock climbing and bungee jumping. This development comes with the question of whether these high-risk sports need to be outlawed, or if people are entitled to their choice of recreation. This essay will explore both views before giving the author’s opinion.
There are two main reasons justifying a ban on extreme sports. Firstly, these sports often pose grave health and safety risks. Most adventure sports involve high speed, risky stunts and harsh environmental factors, thus having a higher rate of injury compared to traditional sports. In fact, a US study has revealed that snowboarding was the primary cause of injuries among winter sports in 2007, leaving nearly 150.000 injured. Furthermore, action sports shows might fascinate youngsters and encourage stunt attempts. On TV, risky tricks like jumps and flips look easy since they are performed by professional athletes. Hence, impressionable adolescents, underestimating the training that goes into stunts, can try to imitate them out of curiosity or admiration, which could result in injuries.
However, where some may only see dangers, others see freedom of choice, and taking away such freedom would be detrimental to not only the professionals but also the public. For the former, partaking in adventure sports events serves as a source of income as well as a way to satisfy their adrenaline cravings. Should these sports be banned, athletes might resort to illegal means that do not guarantee their safety and access to healthcare. Additionally, to the general public, extreme athletes and the sports themselves are inspirations for surpassing the limits of the human body. Watching remarkable feats be accomplished certainly motivates people to overcome their own challenges in life.
In conclusion, while certain perils go hand in hand with action sports, I believe that each individual should decide for themselves what kind of activity they would like to undertake as long as safety precautions are taken.
Sample 21:
There have been controversies surrounding whether extreme sports should be prohibited. While some people may support such a policy, my view is that it should be up to the players to choose which sports to participate in. Those who are in favor of banning dangerous sports might put the blame on the risks these activities bring about, such as a high chance of injuries or death, even with thorough mental and physical preparation. No matter how professional a player is, mistakes can always happen, which often leads to dangerous or even life-threatening situations. For example, skydivers who freefall from great altitudes may suffer from acute pain or even death. Another factor that advocates of these policies might bring up is the malfunction of equipment. If a parachute fails to deploy while airborne, for instance, a skydiver will have to face inevitable death. However, I am of the opinion that people should be free to participate in any sport that they wish. Firstly, it is a matter of morality, since it would be unfair to forbid extreme sports enthusiasts from taking part in the activities they love. Such hobbies may act as a thrilling escape from reality, where they can experience the heart-stopping feelings that their tedious lives could never offer. Secondly, the training needed in preparation for these extreme sports can help a person attain peak health condition. Finally, there are multiple ways which help minimize the risks that pose to players, such as bringing back-up equipment, or being accompanied by an experienced instructor. To recapitulate, although the dangers that extreme sports bring about should not be overlooked, I believe that everyone should have the autonomy to take part in any activities of their choice.
CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ
Câu 1:
Câu 2:
It is not necessary to travel to other places to learn about the culture of other people. We can learn just as much from books, films and the internet. Do you agree or disagree?
Câu 3:
It is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Câu 4:
Câu 5:
Developments in technology have brought various environmental problems. Some believe that people need to live simpler lives to solve environmental problems. Others, however, believe technology is the way to solve these problems. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Câu 6:
Câu 7:
Although more and more people read the news on the Internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news for the majority of people. Do you agree or disagree?
500 bài Đọc điền ôn thi Tiếng anh lớp 12 có đáp án (Đề 1)
500 bài Đọc hiểu ôn thi Tiếng anh lớp 12 có đáp án (Đề 21)
Topic 1: Family life
Bộ câu hỏi: [TEST] Từ loại (Buổi 1) (Có đáp án)
Đề kiểm tra cuối kì I Tiếng Anh 12 (Mới nhất) - Đề 11
Topic 31: Global warming (Phần 2)
Bộ câu hỏi: Các dạng thức của động từ (to v - v-ing) (Có đáp án)
Đề thi cuối học kỳ 1 Tiếng Anh 12 Global Success có đáp án (Đề 1)
về câu hỏi!