Society around the world believes that the governments should not provide life threatening sports. While some argue that they should be provided choices to do this sport. This essay will discuss both perspectives before concluding with a personal view point.
Proponents of the statement argue that people should not be allowed to do dangerous sports so that they can reduce the accident rate. This means that by banning life threatening sports will result in a more safe society, by banning this kind of sports, people around the world can keep themselves and others safe. Sports like free climbing, surfing, and many more extreme sports are proven to have higher accident rate compared to normal sports like basketball, football, and more. For instance, by banning free climbing, the risk of people who fall then die or hit people will decrease.
Conversely, advocates for other people argue that they should be given freedom to do any kind of sport, because they have the right to think and act as an individual. The freedom to do what sports an individual wants also has many benefits, like there will be many people who can learn, experience and give lessons about the sports so that many will know how important it is to do the right technique. For instance, individuals that are interested in free climbing can ask the expert about what skill or strength is required so that the accident risk could be minimised. In addition, people who do dangerous sports like free climbing, surfing are proven to help in many rescue missions.
To conclude, while it is evident that life threatening sports has some risk compared to other sports, I firmly believe that people should be given freedom to do what sports they want to do, because they themselves have the right to act, think, and make decisions.