Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
I don't agree with the statement because the importance of the arts and athletics should be weighed in many aspects, and we cannot give the exactly conclusion about whether the arts are more significant than athletics. First of all, I agree with the importance of the arts that makes someone be approved of the statemnt that government should spend more money on the arts than athletic because the arts can help let the citizens' behavior become more decorous, and go futher, the arts can build the correct mindset and also make them healthier either mentally or physically. However, athletics such as Olympic teams can also arouse the awareness of the public to exercise regularly. Take China for instance, the government greatly sponsored the table tennis teams, and they also get good grades in many international competitions, so the people in China generally obtain they're interest in playing table tennis. It makes them keep their perfect body shape and substain their good health. Secondly, government's sponsorship can effectively propagate the arts styles come from many other countries, and then it can help the public to cultivate their international vision and perspective. Nevertheless, when the Olympics team stated their tour of competitions by travelling itinerantly, we can also acknowledge some different concepts form different cultures all over the world. Last but not least, although the arts can help to improve a country's economic, take the exhibitions of contemporary arts held in many places for example. However, many kinds of sports people see on TV or watch in the court also can impulse the economical growth of a country.
Submitted by 王郁仁 on