The first opinion of the debate is to spending money on providing facilities for the commoners by the government while the second one argues that the investment should be for the top athletes only. This is a well-debated topic and deserves some attentions. In my opinion both the schools are correct in some senses and they have some reasons to believe so.
Firstly, it should be considered that the number of ordinary people is considerably higher than the top athletes. So, they are in need of some sports facilities where they could have the chance of physical activities. In fact, we all are aware of the importance of physical activities and how they benefit us all. In my locality, there are no public parks available where the people can take some exercises in morning or evening hours. So, the number of patients with physical disorders like diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc. is on the rise in my locality here in Jakarta and the issue got covered on the local dailies as well. The government in a county should be more focused on improving the public health than winning some trophies.
On the contrary, top athletes are assets for a nation. Their failure in any competition is the disgrace for the entire state. Unless they are trained in a perfect manner, they would be unable to participate in major competitions and bring the desired fame for the country. So, a proper training is a must for them. It would really be a humiliation when media will cover stories over their failures in international sporting events and if that happens for lack of government appreciation.
Therefore, considering both the arguments, I think the government should make a balance between the two. Usually, physical activities make people fit and help to be an effective workforce. So, if the mass people turn physically inactive, an economic disaster is a must. Further, if the top athletes are ignored, it will be a disgrace for the nation. Hence, the I believe the government should pay attention in both the case equally.
The
first
opinion of the debate is
to spending
money on providing facilities for the commoners by the
government
while the second one argues that the investment should be for the
top
athletes
only
. This is a well-debated topic and deserves
some
attentions. In my opinion both the schools are correct in
some
senses and
they have
some
reasons to believe
so
.
Firstly
, it should
be considered
that the number of ordinary
people
is
considerably
higher than the
top
athletes
.
So
, they are in need of
some
sports facilities where they could have the chance of
physical
activities. In fact, we all are aware of the importance of
physical
activities and how they benefit us all. In my locality, there are no public parks available where the
people
can take
some
exercises in morning or evening hours.
So
, the number of patients with
physical
disorders like diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc. is on the rise in my locality here in Jakarta and the issue
got
covered on the local dailies
as well
. The
government
in a county should be more focused on improving the public health than winning
some
trophies.
On the contrary
,
top
athletes
are assets for a nation. Their failure in any competition is the disgrace for the entire state. Unless they
are trained
in a perfect manner
, they would be unable to participate in major competitions and bring the desired fame for the country.
So
, a proper training is a
must
for them. It would
really
be a humiliation when media will cover stories over their failures in international sporting
events
and if that happens for lack of
government
appreciation.
Therefore
, considering both the arguments, I
think
the
government
should
make
a balance between the two.
Usually
,
physical
activities
make
people
fit and
help
to be an effective workforce.
So
, if the mass
people
turn
physically
inactive, an economic disaster is a
must
.
Further
, if the
top
athletes
are
ignored
, it will be a disgrace for the nation.
Hence
,
the I
believe the
government
should pay attention in both the case
equally
.