# data[].attributes.body
Extreme sports are apparently risky, and some individuals believe the government should outlaw them. Others believe that people have the right to participate in any sport they wish. People, in my opinion, should be allowed to engage in any activity they choose.
There are certain reasons why risky sports should be prohibited by the government. To begin with, extreme sports will cause long-term harm to people's physical health. Broken bones, for example, will make it difficult for people to walk or do heavy tasks in the future, lowering their quality of life. Dangerous sports can also lead to mental disease. Plant-life is the most deadly example. People will be paralyzed as a function of their brain collapsing while playing. This condition is likely to have long-term effects, and the chances of recovery are slim. As a consequence, the government should consider prohibiting this type of sport.
Although extreme sports can be fatal at some points, I feel that players are always supervised by organizers and that extreme sports provide substantial advantages. To commence, companies that provide risky sports are becoming increasingly advanced about processes and safety gear. For example, while jumping out of an aircraft, participants must be accompanied by a professional coach, and anybody under the age of 18 is not restricted from participating. Furthermore, extreme sports can assist players in successfully releasing stress, resulting in higher productivity and creativity at work.
To recapitulate, I suppose that, with the advancement of equipment and strict discipline, individuals are now able to participate in risky activities without fear of negative implications.

# data[].attributes.body
In recent times, there have been divergent opinions revolving around whether authorities should impose a prohibition on dangerous sports, or they should allow people to freely choose their favorite ones. Although allowance might be under the perception of justified freedom of choice, it cannot proclaim the permanent injuries sportsperson might encounter when imperiling themselves with dangerous sports. Admittedly, both views are reasonable with their own merits, despite it, I am in accord with the former approach.

Those in support of the freedom of choice indicate that people can amuse better if dangerous sports were to be open-wide. Intrinsically, in some people's perspective, applying themselves to a heavy body workout is the best way to de-stress after an intense day working. Options for personal activities depend on each person, and undeniably, the most appropriate and suitable choice would maximize their entertainment. To put it simply, freedom of choice provides them with varied selections in sports and activities, which in turn push their amusement to the peak.

On the other hand, the imposition of a prohibition on perilous sports would prevent irreversible injuries. To illustrate, in some cases, it is not the carelessness or amateurism but the malfunction of facilities that engenders injuries, or even fatalities. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania have figured out that up to 90% of sportsperson imperil their lives by being conservatively absorbing themselves in dangerous sports that bring them precarious happiness. That explains why introducing a ban from authorities would minimize the rate of permanent injuries.

To recapitulate, people have every reason to maintain the legalization of sportsperson like justified freedom of choice every people deserve. Despite this, I still support the opinion of phasing out perilous sports since it is more advantageous in terms of injuries prevention, and it literally aims for the long-run betterment.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people think the newly built houses should be the same as the old houses in local areas. Others argue that local authorities should allow people to build houses in their own style. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The escalation of residential areas requests the variety in housing styles. There has been a divergence that either we should retain  these houses architecture or alternating them. Although the idea of keeping the uniformity is proper, we also appreciate the human privilege. Accordingly, I am the moderation in approval.

I reckon the uniformity is the inclination of almost elderly. Simply put, houses in other areas not only possess the various styles, but these also typically symbolizes its traditional and cultural values. In this cutting-edge day, when many nations tend to integrate, each specialities should be preserved considerately. A salient example is the Phoenix Ancient Town of China - the renowned destination which attracts travelers from around the world on account of its antique manner. It implies that the intactness of local regions should be conserved due to the historical worth.

Concerning human rights, I firmly incline to the individual style. Each houses is one’s possession, so it is trivial when they can entirely select by themselves, and no one can manipulate it. Imagine that we have to use our earnings for the irrelevant purposes or the principles of society, I assume citizens will not permit, notably in these day. Additionally, the distinctions make our life become more lively since it leave us the motivations to create, develop the daily. It is really meaningful if we   change the old styles to the better version.

To recapitulate, regardless of some opposite ideas, when we can balance between saving the old values and knowing how to enhance our human being, the happiness will come with us naturally. There is the great choice if we keep our wishes associate with the past price.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have the freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion- hương giang

# data[].attributes.subject
Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have the freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion- hương giang

# data[].attributes.body
Some believe that harmful sports should be prohibited, while others believe that anybody should be able to participate in any sport or activity. In my opinion, rather than prohibiting sports, the government should regulate them to make them safer.

Some sports involving physical contact are extremely dangerous, yet they are also quite popular among a large segment of the population. Mixed martial arts and other contact sports can cause substantial bodily injury to players. Accidents do happen in the ring, and sportsmen might become paralyzed.

However, outright prohibiting the activity will not alleviate the issue of bodily injury; in fact, it may have the opposite effect. Prohibition will just drive them underground, as there is clearly a market for them. This will not only imperil the lives of individuals who engage, but it will also result in the authorities losing a significant amount of money. As a result, authorities should concentrate their efforts on regulating such activities in order to make them safer for players. If these sports are regulated and mainstreamed, they can bring in significant money for the government.

As a result, I believe risky sports should be controlled to limit the risk of bodily injury to participants while simultaneously being permitted to survive as a mainstream sport as long as the laws and regulations are followed.

# data[].attributes.body
Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have the freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

There have been divergent opinions revolving around the permission of risky sports. Governors and sportspeople have argued about whether such activities shall be prohibited, or they should permit every athletic. Although the ban helps to avoid severe permanent injuries, people can amuse better if it were to be free open-wide. I am in accord with the former view.

Undoubtedly, having the autonomy to participate in hazardous sports makes players fulfill their happiness. Many researchers show that while doing adventurous activities, the brain would release a huge of dopamine chemicals, which relieve stress and trigger mental ecstasy. A salient example is that climbers from challenge themselves will enjoy the invigorating experience of standing on top of a mountain peak. Besides, extreme sports are favored by spectators at various ages as they get ultimate excitement when watching the shows, so athletes also have amusement and fame.

Without the authority’s careful censorship, athletes’ safety would not be improved. It is appearances that extreme sports enthusiasts are more likely to be vulnerable than players of ordinary sports, owing to dangerous nature, environmental elements, and lack of medical care. A mountain climber, for instance, is always prone to fatal falls even with the protection of climbing equipment. On top of that, completely prohibiting people from taking part in dangerous sports seems infeasible, so restricting extreme sports is the first preference to reduce the accident rate.

In recapitulation, although dangerous sports offer enjoyment to both athletes and audiences, it is undeniable that sportspeople have to be faced with ample unpredictable consequences to their health, which is always the top priority in life if they are not supervised. Therefore, restraining these sports is the only way to balance players’ freedom and also minimize at least the undesirable upcoming results.

# data[].attributes.body
There have been divergent opinions revolving around the permission of risky sports. Governors and sportspeople have been argued about whether such activities shall be prohibited, or they should permit every athletic. Although the ban helps to avoid severe permanent injuries, people can amuse better if it were to be free open-wide. I am in accord with the careful censorship from authority.
Participating in risky activities can cause participants to have a high rate of serious injury or if they are lucky, they will only get a light scratch. This is the reason for asking the government to ban all extreme sports activities.
On the other hand, there are also many advocates for participating in extreme sports activities. Participating in sports that is their passion and dream. Despite the dangers of participating in those sports, they still strive to fulfill their dreams.
In short, to keep athletes healthy, it is necessary to avoid dangerous situations if necessary, the government must ban all extreme sports.

# data[].attributes.body
There has been a divergence of opinion revolving around hazardous sports permission. While many believe that these activities should be prohibited, other skeptics encourage this to have the privilege. Although the prohibition helps to avoid severe permanent injuries, people can amuse better if it were to be free. I am in accord with the careful censorship from the government.

Because of modern life, doubling sports appear as a pleasure to relieve pressure. Many research shows that the extreme sports athlete's body releases huge adrenaline which creates excitement, passion, and desire to explore personal limits. As a result, more and more people participate and strongly support for that kind of sport, making it become ubiquitous. It means the authority should  liberate the dangerous sport to satisfy citizen’s mental need.

Despite this, when banning risky athletics, the social will probably diminish  a plethora of injuries, potentially regard to life. If people join unsafe activities without equipment support, it will be a massive danger for the players. No matter how sophisticated the device is, it cannot ensure all the possible risk. A salient example is freeflying or skydiving which causes many casualties to participants. By excluding the active of unsafe activity with strict laws ensure a peaceful life for habitants with lower injury rate.

In recapitulation, although people have every reason to support freedom of extreme sports, it cannot disclaim the direct impacts on people’s health. Accordingly, I firmly support the restriction in toxic activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The escalation of residential area has entailed debates revolving around the style of new accommodations

# data[].attributes.body
There have been divergent opinions revolving around the permission of dangerous sport. Governors and sportspeople have argued about whether such activities will be forbidden or permit every athlete. Although people can amuse better if it were to be free, the limited ban will reduce the high rate of injury of the participants. I tend to be convinced by the latter view of the careful censorship from authority.

Undoubtedly, practicing extreme sports will make citizens feel full of energy, freedom, and power as the adrenaline generated when people exercise these activities. Simply put, dangerous sports help push citizens' limits, get rid of fear, and reach new goals. Therefore, a considerable way to get to know oneself better and to achieve liberty.

Without proper management, it can be easy to ensure the safety and life of the participants. It means extreme sports have higher rates of injury than most traditional sports owing to their dangerous nature, environmental element, and lack of access to medical care. As follows, a traumatic injury and blood loss are habitually the cause of death such as climbing, skiing, mountain biking. On top of that, banning people from participating in extreme sports seems very hard, so restricting some extreme sports and expanding protection measures for participants is a top priority. It implies that paying closer attention to safety way is certainly reduce the accident rate.

In conclusion, any sport has its pros and cons, but extreme sports have the potential to have unpredictable consequences if not properly monitored and managed. That is why I believe that limited control is not only the concept to balance the sportspeople's freedom but also ensure their lives while participating in these activities.

# data[].attributes.body
There have been divergent opinions revolving around the permission of risky sports. Governors and sportspeople have been argued about whether such activities shall be prohibited, or they should permit every athletic. Although the ban helps to avoid severe permanent injuries, people can amuse better if it were to be open-wide. I am in accord with the latter view of the careful censorship from authority.

Although extreme sports are sometimes risky, such sports should not be banned as they offer great benefits to the participants. As today's dangerous sports organizations and sponsors become increasingly meticulous about their procedures and protective equipment, it should be ensured that individuals are safe while participating in these activities. Thus, players will have the opportunity to satisfy these interests after being stressed by the pressure at work and have the enjoyable experience of playing stimulating games such as extreme sports. Moreover, such extreme sports are often enjoyed by audiences of all ages as they can get the ultimate excitement from watching the show, so athletes can also have a lot of fun. much fame and wealth. Equally important, citizens have the right to do whatever they want, and that should be respected, not prohibited by law.

These types of sports tend to pose various issues regarding the safety of the players as they can be seriously injured or even killed. For example, a broken bone deprives them of essential activities that can be detrimental to their daily lives. Besides, collapsing while participating in extreme sports can activate plant life for athletes and the recovery rate is very low. Furthermore, some dangerous sports, such as boxing, mixed martial arts, mostly exhibit violence. As a result, spectators of these sports, especially teenagers, may be encouraged to have aggressive thoughts or improper behaviors in their lives.

In conclusion, I reckon that with the development of equipment and extreme sports today, people can comfortably play dangerous sports without worrying about their drawbacks.

# data[].attributes.body
There has been a significant divergence of opinion revolving around whether hazardous sports should be abolished or can be freely encouraged. Both sides have their own merits, however I lean toward the former when considering about the temporary consequent injuries even death accidence and creating aggressive attitude since it consumes violence.

The attendance in risky activities cannot ensure the safety and other serious wound on sportspeople health. To be more specific, both professional and amateur athletes must deal with unpreventable occupational accidences as these unwelcomed risks can come even if it just an insignificant mistake during the contest. For instance, Formula 1 – a well-known car racing championship, appears many clashes a year, which causes physical injuries or paralysis. This circumstance directly implies that prohibit dangerous activities can prevent acute results of crashing and heath problems for risky sport enthusiasts.

People indulge themselves in participating extreme sporting events not only self-creating their own high-risk problems together with life-threatening but also make an argumentative atmosphere between the contestants. In other words, extreme sports like racing, boxing, rugby… commonly sports contain antagonistic contradiction, sometimes also effect the viewers. For example, in Russia, there has been a kickboxing match between two Russians, after competing violently, one lost his life right at the ring. It suggests that governments should create the enactment stringently to prevent the undesirable upcoming results.

In recapitulation, although it would be humanity to let the hazardous sport enthusiasts doing what they are desire. Athletes’ health and life rank first in the order of importance. Therefore, the freedom of engaging in dangerous sports should be kept moderately and prohibited if necessary.

# data[].attributes.body
There has been a significant divergence of opinion revolving around permission of dangerous sport. Governors and sportspeople have been argued about whether such activities shall be prohibited, or they should permit every athletics. Undoubtedly, the ban helps to avoid severe permanent injuries, people can amuse better if it were to be free. Therefore, I firmly agree that the ban of this risky sport brings mutual benefit to both player and government.

Hazardous sports has a high chance of serious injury or death because they often have a high level of difficulty and challenge. No matter how modern the device is, no matter how experienced the player is, nothing is certain. Anything can happen in life. There are many cases of players being seriously injured or even killed by adventure games. An instance of this is bungee jump. A Polish tourist participated in this game at a height of 100m. He scarcely jumped down when the rope suddenly slipped. Fortunately he survived, but he suffered severe injuries to his neck and internal organs.

Many extreme sports such as boxing represent violence. Violent sports can affect the thoughts and actions of players and spectators. Currently, boxing is often shown directly on TV, both adults and children can watch it. So the most negative impact will probably be on the intelligence and perception of children. It encourage aggressive thoughts and behaviours of viewers, especially adolescent.

In recapitulation, although people have human rights,
the government should still abolish some risky games to ensure the safety of the people.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Some people think the newly built houses should be the same as the old houses in local areas. Others argue that local authorities should allow people to build houses in their own style. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Some people think that governments should ban dangerous sports, while others think people should have the freedom to do any sports or activity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion