Do you agree with a boycott of the Olympics? Discuss.

Topic - Sports
Issue - Whether a boycott of the Olympics is appropriate
Context - Anytime
Keywords - Boycott - cancel, call off
Stand - No, do not agree


Topic sentences
1)Boycotting of the Olympics is not fair for athletes who participating.
2)Olympics should carry on regardless of any situation.
3)Boycotting of the Olympics would not solve the problem.
4)Solutions to the tension in Tibet should be thought of instead of boycotting.

Point - Boycotting of the Olympics is not fair for athletes who are participating.

Elaboration - Olympics is a prestigious competition in the world. It is for athletes who are good in certain sports to participate, bring glory to their country or even family. However it is not something that could be taken lightly and boycotted anytime we like.

Explanation - Athletes who are participating have spent alot of time to practise, to sharpen their skill in order to win a medal in the Olympics competition. The Olympics could be said to be their dreams which are so important to them. Thus by calling off the Olympics, it would be very unfair to the athletes as their time and efforts would be gone to drains. Moreover, Olympics is held only once every four years and their skills are most likely to deprove as they grow older.

Evidence - China gymnasts who took part in past Olympics gymnastics competition have trained since young at the age of 3 on average. Next scientific research shows that one's flexibility, needed in gymnastics, would deprove as he or she gets older.

Link - Thus boycotting of the Olympics should not happen as it will be very unfair for the athletes.


ShanGui

Do you agree with the boycott of Olympics? Discuss.

Topic: Sports and Politics
Issue: Is it all right to boycott Olympics?
Context: Anytime, Anywhere
Keywords: Boycott - Abstain from something/ Stop doing something
Stand: Disagree

Topic Sentences:

1) Boycotting of the Olympics will only cause matters to get worse.
2) Boycotting of the Olympics will only result in a loss of chance for athletes to prove themselves.
3) Olympics is a well regarded event and boycotting it would be a wrong thing to do.
4) Politics and Sports are two different issues that cannot be mixed together.

Point: Olympics is a well regarded event and boycotting it would be a wrong thing to do.

Elaboration: People from all over the world are anticipating for the start of the Olympics. It is a popular event for everyone, also a stage for athletes to show everyone what they are worth of. Hence, if it were to be boycotted, lots of grievances and problems might arise.

Example: The 1980s Summer Olympics that is boycotted by US and other countries was held in Moscow. This has led to a huge controversy being formed.

Evaluation: Boycotting of the Olympics would only cause more troubles and misconception. This might even lead to greater issues in which countries get into deeper misunderstanding, escalating into fights or wars. By then, it would be too late to salvage the situation. Hence, we should solve the problem while it’s still early.

Link: Therefore, it is only right to save all the troubles and just get the Olympics going.

louis

Do you agree with the boycott of the olympics.

Question analysis.

Topic:olympics and politics
Issue: countries Boycotting the olympics
Context:past, present, future, global.
Keywords:Boycott-reusing to do something by getting a whole group to do so.
Stand: I do not agree.

Topic sentence 1:
Boycotting , not just in the olympics, is wrong by itself.

Topic sentence 2:
Boycotting the olympics does not solve anything.

Topic sentence 3:
the olympics was made for sports, not for boycott.

Topic sentence 4.
Boycotts of the olympics did not work in the past.

topic sentence 3 chosen.

point:
The olympics were made for sports, not for boycott.

elaboration:
Countries are using the olympics as a chance to express their unhappiness among each other, and boycotting it seems to be their soultion. However they forget that the true essence of the olympics is for atheletes to compete with each other, not to bring politics in and settle disputes. It would be unfair to the atheletes if they had been training very hard for the event and yet their own counrty does not allow them to participate due to some conlifct between the two countries. It will also lead to nothing but the worsening of the conflict.

example.:though there was boycott of the moscow olympics, the event still went on as well and there were even more new world records made there.

evulation:
thus, even though there may be unwilling parties to join the olympics, the event would still go on as many other countries would still participate. thus this would greatly affect those atheletes who were training for the event and yet were not allowed to go. the conflict among them would also still worsen. the olympics was only made for sports, and adding politics will only make the conflict even worse.

Link:
thus we can see that by mixing politics with the olympics would create greater conflict not only among the countries, but also among the atheletes and the government of the country as well. thus i do not agree to the boycott of the olympics.

kenneth

Do you agree with a boycott of the Olympics?

Question Analysis
Topic: Sports and Politics
Issue: Whether there should be a boycott of the Olympics
Context: Present
Key-words: Boycott - to abstain from participating
Stand: I do not agree.

Topic Sentence 1: Sports and Politics should never be mixed together, which in this case, it apparantly did so.

Topic Sentence 2: A boycott of the Olympics will deal a tremendous blow to the innocent athletes participating in it.

Topic Sentence 3: By boycotting the Olympics, it would only strain those countries' ties with China, a growing power whose force cannot be underestimated.

Topic Sentence 4: By supporting the boycott of the Olympics, it would only mean that the activists have achieved their goal.

Topic sentence chosen: Sports and Politics should never be mixed together, which in this case, it apparantly did so.

Point: Sports and Politics should never be mixed together, which in this case, it apparantly did so.

Elaboration: Sports and Politics are two entirely different story, and they should never be mixed together. Rational people would most likely comprehend but however, the activists that aim to deal a severe blow to China by encouraging the boycott due to the Tibet's unrest, are oblivious to that and tried to stir up anti-China feelings among the people. By doing so, it only shows the immaturity of those people, and whatever they do, we all know well that the Olympics can never be stopped.

Evidence: Over the past few decades, we have all seen that acts of boycotting the Olympics were never successful and the Olympics proceeded on even without the participation of several countries.

Evaluation: The boycott will never be successful and it would only stain the reputation of those who support the boycott, and shows their level of maturity in handling such situations.

Link: Therefore, i do not agree to the boycott of the Olympics as eventually, Sports is sports, Politics is politics, these two should never be mixed together.

-Edmund

Do you agree with a boycott of the Olympics? Discuss.

Topic: Olympics

Issue: Boycotting the Olympics

Context:

Time – Not specified
Place – Worldwide

Keywords:

Boycott - Banning; Refusal to participate in the games
Olympics - Global event with long history; great and extensive media emphasis;

Important for host country
Discuss - Personal views; Two-sided arguments
Stand: Definite yes or no ( As seen from ‘Do You Agree’)

My Stand: Do not agree

Topic Sentences:

1. Boycotting the Olympics is not necessary as it may not be effective in improving the situation.

2. Boycotting may imply a lack of respect to the host country of the Olympic Games, hence leading or extending to strains in relationship between the two countries in the future.

3. Countries should not focus too much on politics but instead emphasize on the true spirit and purpose behind the Olympics.

4. Boycotting may result in the intensive preparations done by the athletes to go to waste, hence causing a great setback to them.

Content Paragraph

Point: I believe that boycotting is not necessary, as it may not be effective in resolving the conflict.

Elaboration: The fact that it is not necessary is because the solution does not depend solely on threats. Instead, it is more important that the parties involved understand and realize the importance to change their mentality or wrongdoings, in an attempt to rebuild peace and harmony between the two parties. This would then act as a catalyst to resolve the conflict, much more quickly and effectively. Though boycotting often provides a faster and more direct way to solve the problem, there may also be an equal amount of possibility that it backfires and instead, results in a negative impact.

Example: Take for example the recent boycott threat on the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. The European Union is one such country who attempts to use boycotting as a means to resolve the conflict between China and Tibet. Through it, they intend to force China to improve its attitude and treatment towards the Tibetans.

Evaluation: However by boycotting the Olympics, it may spark off anger in the Chinese, due to the fact that their hard work spend on making the 2008 Olympics a success will be put to waste, as well as posing a great negative impact on their reputation. This may lead to the arise of rebellious attitudes which may worsen China’s treatment towards the Tibetans and their level of respect towards human rights.

Link: Hence this makes it more difficult for a peaceful solution to be reached.

Justin

(1996 - mass media)The media can be largely blamed for the world-wide increase in violence.' to what extent do u agree?

Topic - Media
Issue - Media can be largely blamed for the world-wide increase in violence to what extent?
Context - Global, present
Keywords - Violence - riots, strikes, Increase - comparison should be made
Stand - Media can indeed be largely blamed

4 Topic Sentences -

1)The media, by reporting on sensitive issues, may unintentionally start up a confront.

2)Media is a form of propagation, as violent scences are repeated, people tend to be influenced by it.

3)The media, by portraying the explicit details and scenes on violence, has no doubt influenced people to take part in it as well, leading to world-wide increase in violence.

4)Due to its far reaching capabilities, the media by reporting on certain violence incidences, can help rally the support of other affected people, and thus fuel the rise of the violence.

Chosen topic sentence - The media, by portraying the explicit details and scenes on violence, has no doubt influenced people to take part in it as well, leading to world-wide increase in violence.

Paragraph for chosen topic sentence-

The media, by portraying the explicit details and scenes on violence, has no doubt influenced people to take part in it as well, leading to world-wide increase in violence. Media is everywhere, ever since its commercialisation in the 19th century, it had since had a great impact in the lives of many. One major influence which it brought about is violence. This often arises through movies, tv shows, articles, as well as pictures and reported articles. By reporting on certain violence related issues, it may fuel the anger in some people, causing them to develop hatred and eventually participating in the violence situation. An example is the recent unrest in Tibet, where the riots, which eventually evolved to violent confronts with the authorities, have fueled the anger in many people due to the vast media reports, spurring them to engage in the current situation as well. Thus, the media, definitely have the ability to increase world-wide violence.

Group effort.

Is the Environment suffering?

The environment is indeed suffering. Increasing release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide has led to an increase in the average global temperature over the years, from 1880 to present. The most worrying now is that the average temperature is expected to continue rising with the increasing amount of greenhouse gases released now.

The rise in temperature of the atmosphere has brought about serious consequences. Firstly, it has caused the vast ice caps at North and South Poles to melt which in turn caused the sea level to rise. Though the impact of rising sea level is not so visible, however in time to come, low lying areas will be submerged in water. In other words, lives would be lost and financial cost would be iccurred. The rapid melting of ice caps would also result in the extinction of life in Artic or Antartica, polar bears and penguins. This is because they would be confined to small standing grounds and extincted if the ice caps were to be completely melted. Next, rising temperatures would cause famine. This is due to the changes in the temperature of soil. Every crop would grow best in different soil temperature. Thus by increasing the temperature of soil due to rising atmospheric temperature, crops would not grow optimally causing insufficient food supply, famine. Lastly, the rise in temperature would affect the weather. As such, more natural disaster would be more frequently seen, such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

Release of carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere comes mostly from exhaust pipes in vehicles' engines. Moreover the usage of cars has increased over the years due to increasing demand for luxury good as people now have greater purchasing power compared to the past. One should in fact take transport such as trains or buses instead of driving cars as this would significantly decrease amount of carbon dioxide being released should everyone be environment conscious.

ShanGui

is the environment suffering?

Not only is our world already ageing and no longer as healthy as before, but her population is speeding up the ageing process by suffocating it with a perfume called pollution.

The effects do not seem prominent just yet, but it is as real as ever. Just by looking at a simple global temperature chart as above, we can easily realize that what we are doing actually does harm to the already dying earth. Deforestation, land, water, air pollution, global warming, do we still need any evidence that the environment is suffering? Many of us do not think so due to the very fact that they do not feel the impact yet. Only when they experience some major catastrophe do the people of the earth declare it the end of days.

In the long run, perhaps not in the near future, the damage to the environment will slowly build up, and by then, earth will take its revenge on us by no longer protecting us from the elements. There is just so much the earth can hold onto our constant abuse to her, and when it finally snaps, I do not even want to think what would happen to us.

At the sacrifice of the environment to make life better for ourselves, mankind is ultimately destroying himself. Be wise, stop while its still safe to turn back.

kenneth

Is the environment suffering???

There is no doubt about this. Forest are fell each day to satisfy the amount of land needed for construction of newer and better infrastructures. Tons of fossil fuels are burned each day to generate electricity so that we can live even better. Cars are used so often that the amount of waste gases are enough to choke millions to death. However, few have made the effort to save our environment. One excellent evidence about the earth suffering is the 'fever' its having every single day. Global temperature has been on the increase for the past 100 years. This will have significant effects if we continue to ignore it. Ice caps are melting, water levels are rising, even the chance of lowlands being flooded has increased. Large amount of greenhouse gases are released into the air each day. Even the simple use of aerosol canspray can lead to the addition of these gases. Our 'protector', the ozone layer, is getting thinner and thinner with more and more holes in it. Right above Australia is one big hole letting in lots of harmful UV rays, causing skin cancer and illness. From this, we can see that not only is the environment suffering, we, the inhabitant will suffer too if we continue to neglect it. Another example is pollution, it can take the form of air, land, water and even noise. The emission of giant clouds of smoke from the power station might seem rather cool, but its actually harming the environment, even though there are scrubbers to lessen the dirt and chemicals. Therefore we must look for an alternative source of energy which is cheap and durable. In conclusion, our environment is definitely suffering, however, what we can do is to help lessen the impact we are giving to the earth. No matter is it by using less paper to using alternative sources of energy, we must save our environment to save ourselves.

Louis

Is Environment Suffering?

http://www.africanconservancy.org/about/documents/Facts.pdf

Extinction of Species
· Every 20 minutes, the world adds another 3,500 human lives but loses one or more entire species of animal or plant life - at
least 27,000 species per year. (Source: PBS)
· At the present rates of extinction, as many as 20% of the world's 7-15 million species could be gone in the next 30 years.
This rate of extinction has been unprecedented since the disappearance of dinosaurs 65 million years ago (Source: WWF).

The Iraq War, bird flu, US economy crisis, conflict in Tibet, rise in food prices, the escape of Mas Selamat… These are just some of the many events that are currently happening somewhere in this world. People sacrifice their utmost concern and attention while countries spend large amount of money as well as deploying thousands of pairs of hands and legs just for these events. Though these events are worth one’s time and effort, many often overlook the most fundamental and critical problem that is currently going on. This problem concerns all parts of the world and nations, regardless of the level of development. Yes, the topic I am talking about here is Environmental Destruction.

Being stewards of the Earth, our main responsibility is to look after it, make sure that it is ‘fine and healthy’ and to ensure that it is able to sustain the lives of our future generations. However the fact that the Earth is currently in bad shape shows that we are not doing our job, at least not good enough.

One very good evidence to show the extent and severity of environmental destruction, implicated on our Mother Earth, is the extinction of species. From the information above, the writings claimed that ‘we are losing at least 27,000 species per year, which also means that ‘as many as 20% of the world’s 7 to 15 million species could become extinct in the next 30 years. In addition, it even mentioned that this rate of extinction is unprecedented or in other words, such a phenomenon has never happened before! These figures are alarming and worrying. Furthermore, the graph above also shows a steep increase in the number of extinct animals from 1 in 1900 to about 600 in 2000.

One of the main causes of this is deforestation. Deforestation has affected the rainforest of many countries around the globe, especially tropical rainforests in Southeast Asia. With the clearing of these densely populated forests to meet the increasing demand for timber and paper, the habitat of hundreds and thousands of animals are sacrificed. As these animals fail to adapt to these changes, they give in to the elements of nature and die.

Deforestation is also related to air pollution. As technology and economy improve, the increasing number of cars on the road and its usage result in large quantities of pollutive gases released into the atmosphere. As some of these gases, such as sulphur dioxide, dissolves in the rainwater, acid rain is created. Acid rain is a well known solvent for the killing of plants, thus contributes to deforestation. Besides this, air pollution also results in global warming and the greenhouse effect, which causes ice-caps to melt and sea levels to rise as well as many other destructive consequences.

Water pollution is also another example of environmental suffering. Common examples are oil spills and littering. These not only destroy the beauty of the coasts lining these water bodies, but also kill marine plants and animals, thus contributing to their extinction.

Back on land, natural resources are fast depleting as their demand increases, which is in turn caused by technological improvements. Such resources include crude oil, barren land, metal ores, timber, etc/

Thus with all these harmful impact, I can confidently say that the environment is suffering. Therefore we need to do something and we need to do it fast. In fact, we are already experiencing some of the effects such as more frequent and devastating weather conditions worldwide, spreading of deserts and the rise in global temperatures. There is no time to waste. We need to save MOTHER EARTH!!


Justin

Is Environment ''Suffering''?

There is no doubt that environment is indeed ''suffering''. One can easily prove this by flipping open the newspaper, and there would most likely be at least one certain article concerning environment, be it oil spills, deforestation, ice caps melting, global warming issues, etc. All these are actually repercussions from the selfish acts of mankind, compromising our environment for the benefits of ourselves. For an instance, the countless amount of paper generated each day for our use, have sacrificed a significant amount of trees from the environment, stripping bare some of the rainforests in some countries. This act of deforestation, sparked off a chain reaction, causing environmental problems such as global warming, which results in increased temperature, and leads to ice caps melting in the polar regions, which in turn causes flooding that deluge low-lying lands, taking away innocent lives and also in a way damaging the environment due to the loss of land.

One can also take a look around ourselves. How often can we see greeneries and mother nature beauties in our modern society? High rise buildings and structures, high class restaurants, sport facilities, have all replaced the forests initially there, causing environmentalists to protest, urging policymakers to initiate a ban on cutting down more forests and destroying our natural environment.

Furthermore, even the food that we obtain for consumption have resulted in environmental problems indirectly, such as desertification. To meet our overwhelming demand for food supply, farmers have intensively used their land to increase outputs, causing the soil to be exhausted, resulting in the land being barren. Overtime, the land is being abandoned for use and gradually turns into a desert by several other factors.

To sum it all up, it is true that the environment is ''suffering''. This is certainly due to our selfish acts, thereby causing permanent damage to our surrounding environment for the sake of our own benefits. Mankind should really start to do something about this before the consequences become too severe for us to handle.

-Edmund

Iraq War

This picture shows a boy being burnt in the Iraq War. I guessed we can only describe the war in one word, cruel. The war was carried out as president of USA, George Bush claimed that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction, thus posing an imminent threat to US. However, I strongly believed that this war should not take place in the first place though Iraq might have possessed weapons of mass destructions. Instead talks for peace should be in place of the war as no casualties would be done. Many lives, the Iraqis as well as the Americans, were lost during this war. Yes, indeed death is inevitable in war. However what matters the most are innocent lives of the Iraqis who knew nothing about this war beforhand that were taken away in the war. Even a boy was not spared of his limbs in this war. How could we not condemn such inhumane acts? Besides the lives that were lost, the financial cost of this war is simply tremendous said to be around one trillion US dollars. This war would also trigger other terrorist events such as September 11 at the World Trade Centre. Thus I think that this Iraq War should not have taken place at all.

iraq war

War, is it necessary??? Is it a wonderful thing to see many dying (more than 600,000) during the war just because of some groundless statement made? It has been proven that Iraq is not developing any WMDs so why should there even be a war started based on this issue? Furthermore, the reasons of starting the war has been changing ever since it begins. There seems to be tons of reasons given to continue the war and i believe that there will be many more to come. But many believes that oil is the real reason behind it. Most of the surveys conducted by organisations have been narrowed down to one conclusion - US troops out of Iraq. It might just do everyone good with US troops out of Iraq's land. The amount of people dying is on the rise every single day. The amount of money spent is soon goin to reach an astronomical value. The lifes of Iraqi is affected deeply as long as the troops are still in their land. Therefore, why should US even bother to continue if ending it would benefits all. Lastly, why must war be seen as a solution to this particular issue when there are simply many more ways to solve it.

louis ang

Opinions on the Iraq War

The Iraq war, an ongoing battle led by the United States , started on the 20th of March 2003. Among the countries involved are Iraq, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Poland and other nations. Its main reason and purpose, as given by the United States, is to stop the development of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well as to put an end to terrorism.

I personally do not support wars, and in this case, the Iraq war. In general, yes, war produces more instant results and is a more effective method to stop conflicts, disagreements and other unhappiness between countries. War also reflects a country’s military strength, hence its outcome determines a country’s superiority among the others. However, it has with it so many disadvantages that it makes the advantages look miserably insignificant. I find that wars are not necessary as not only does it not solve the main problems, instead it creates even more unhappiness, conflicts or even misunderstandings. In other words, wars destroy peace and make peaceful solutions even harder to reach.

The disadvantages of the Iraq war are numerous, from deaths of mostly innocent people to economic disruption. One main downside is the number of deaths it caused. Since deadly, more powerful and advanced weapons are used today, the death of soldiers during a war is unavoidable. Till now, there had been an estimated of about 3920 deaths of U.S. soldiers alone with another 29395 wounded during the Iraq war. These are two huge figures and is enough to let one realize the extensiveness of the effect of the Iraq war. Furthermore there are also deaths of the innocent locals in Iraq as well as media reporters, who risked their life to give viewers the best first-hand information of the events happening during the war. One example of such death is CBS cameraman, Paul Douglas, and soundman, James Brolen, who were killed in Iraq in 2006. All these just add on to the death toll and the number of people left grieving over their loved-ones.

Apart from deaths, the Iraq war also resulted in the destruction of infrastructure as well as affecting the lives of the locals in Iraq. Take the photo above (from

http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2007/08/23/g24end.jpeg) as an example. It shows a huge ball of flame in front of a group of army tanks. This photo only reflects what happened in a certain small part of the ‘war zone’. Imagine this level of destruction being repeated hundreds of times and one can realize the amount of damage that is left behind as the attacking troops marched past. Attacks from the opposition had destroyed homes, farms, irrigation systems, pipes carrying clean water to homes, power lines, transport infrastructure, sewerage pipes etc. Most of these are important and necessary for the locals and is also vital to the country’s economy. Without these supporting facilities, Iraq is unable to improve and grow towards success. Its resources will also be diverted for the repairing or rebuilding of these damaged facilities, sacrificing all other needs of the nation. In the end, the final effect is still felt by the locals as they continue to live in poverty and hardship.

These disadvantages which I talked about are just a small portion of a larger group. Hence with all these disadvantages, I find that wars are simply not worth it, in terms of the number of lives sacrificed and the amount of money and resources spent ‘cleaning up’ the mess the war had created. Yet despite all these, the United States alone had pumped in about $845 billion into the Iraq war while more than $4.5 billion were from the United Kingdom. Just think about it, did these countries made the right ‘investments’?

Justin aka J.T.

Opinions on Iraq War

From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tais/24762390/
The Iraq war, also known as the Second Gulf War which was initiated by United States led invasion, have resulted in many criticisms and opinions by many people from all over the world. Everyone is questioning about whether the choice made by the United States - to invade Iraq, was right or wrong. The main rationale given by the United States President George W. Bush at that time, was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed as a immediate threat to all the countries.

Using this ''convenient'' excuse, Iraq was taken over by the U.S led forces and a combination of other country's troops , which resulted in massive deaths from both sides. However, many of these deaths were from innocent civilians which were killed unknowingly by stray bullets and bombs, causing an uproar in Iraq itself by its people. This caused many insurgents to seek revenge by going on a killing spree, killing U.S soldiers and un-armed civilians nonchalantly, pushing the death tolls to a greater height every single day.

Most surprisingly of all, the so called 'weapons of mass destruction'' which in the first place caused this war to happen, did not exist at all after weapon inspectors were sent in to investigate. However, instead of pulling out the troops immediately, United States President George W. Bush increased the number of troops to be sent in as reinforcement, and also spent a huge amount of money on reconstruction, etc.

Clearly, United States President George W. Bush did not consider those soldier's feelings at all, as sending the troops there meant great risks which could cause one's life.Furthermore, the amount of money spent in Iraq itself, could have been used for greater purposes such as donating to the charity and perhaps building more schools in poor and needy countries.

To sum it all up, i feel that the choice to invade Iraq was a wrong one, and it caused serious consequences, disrupting many people's way of life, resulting in deaths of many innocent people, and caused Iraq to be terrorised by insurgents and that the people there could no longer enjoy the peace that they had before.

-Edmund
sry for the low quality pic post.

what i feel about this picture

looking at this picture just makes me sympathize with the people that are involved in the war. in america, most of the soldiers are being forced into the war, while people in iraq are being blinded by their religion into the belief that they are fighting a holy war and would be greatly rewarded with 50 virgins if they died for it. while america has modern weapons, iraq has loyal people that are willing to put their lives for the war. blind faith, as many would call it, contributes to many of the worthless killing involved. at the end of the day only one question remains. "is it worth it?"

kenneth lo

Is winning the most important thing in sports?

Winning is definitely important in sports. It is one of the factor that pushes one to his or her limits. Winning is what most atheletes have in their mindset that spurs them to achieve greater heights. With these encouragements, only can atheletes constantly improve. Sports competitions are held almost everywhere on Earth and at least once in a year. Such competitions include global ones-Olympics Games, SEA Games, Youth Olympics,Fifa World Cup which is held once every four years as well as smaller scale competitions which are held in individual countries. The definition of competition is a situation in which people try to be more successful than other people. In other words competition is a situation in which people try to win others. Thus with all these sports competitions that are organised frequently, how is it possible to say that winning is not important in sports?

One other key essense in sports is sportsmanship. To have sportsmanship means to have a behavior that is fair, honest, and polite in a sports competition or games. Playing fair and treating one's teammates and opponents politely is important in a competition. This is because one is actually competing his true skills or talents against his opponent in sports competition. Therefore there is no point to take drugs such as steroids, resort to using undermeans methods like adding laxative to one's opponent's drink, making him unfit to enter a competition and also injure someone in a game so severely that he has to be taken out from a competiton to win. If one wants to win in a competition, he should win it with glory based on his true capabilities. Next, no matter who win in a competition, one must always treat his teammates and opponents politely. One will surely feel bad if he were to lose in a competition, however that is not an excuse to put blame on others and shouting at his opponents. He should instead learn from his failure and try harder next time.

Though winning and having good sportsmanship are important in sports, however in my opinion, i would say that the most important thing in sports is having good sportsmanship. Like what I always hear from my teacher in my science practical, '' The results are not as important, what is most important is the process.''. Similarly, what is important in sports is the process to see your true abilities, at the same time to most atheletes, to pursue their interests.


Kerby =x (ShanGui)

is winning impt in sports?

Is winning important in sports? Many people have been pondering over this question for a long time. Is winning the primary goal in all competitons? Is winning the only thing that matters in these competitions? I doubt so. In my opinion, winning seconds to sportsmanship and moral values.Some thinks that winning is everything in a competition, but have they really thought about sportmanship? Sportsmanship is actually the behaviour that is fair and honest in a game or competition. If winning is that important eould everyone still care to even play fairly. They would rather use despicable means to obtain their victory, but is that really what sport is about? Would a sportman feel contented to achieve success by sheating his way through? Winning is meaningless if underhand means are utilised. Failure does not mean that it has come to an end. Failure marks the beginning of another road to success, with the knowledge of what not to do and to do to succeed - that is cheating. Does failure mean that everything is gone? Accepting failure and picking yourself up from failure is the mindset that everyone should have. It is far more important than winning. A person who fails continually but picks himself up each time he falls is far better than one who has won a thousand times but is unable to even afford accepting a single failure. If Einstein had not been able to accpet failure, we would still be living in the dark. If every scientist had not learn to take failure in his stride and persevere, we would still be communicating with letters, using raw fire to cook food and catastrophe would become disastrous as we would be in the absence of advance technology. This emphasizes that accpeting failure is an important lifeskills everyone should inculcate. Without it, success would never occur. Winning is indeed a wonderful achievement. Winning allows you to realise how high you are standing among your counterparts. Winning brings fame and glory. Winning feels great. However, in sports, there is more to it than simply winning. Skills, perseverance, sportsmanship, integrity and many more accounts for more than winning. To win without these qualities is self-denial. Therefore I conclude that winning, in sports, is not important relative to moral values.

-louis ang(to save ur eyes, copy and paste on microsoft word to read)

is winning important in sports?

Sports were activities engaged by The Chinese and Egyptians from as early as 4000BC. From then to now, there had been great changes to it. One very obvious transformation is the commercialization of sports and ever since, winning had become a very important factor.

Everywhere, people had long fused winning and sports together, from a casual game in school to a famous global sporting event. The ‘want to win’ mindset had begun ever since sports were created. In schools, even though there is no trophies or other rewards for winning, students engaging in sports will naturally have their mind set on victory. On the global stage, winning and losing could determine one’s future. It is just that important.

We see reports of winning in competitions in the Sports Section of our newspapers almost every day. However, is winning really that important? I personally feel that winning is important in sports, most often in competitions. However, apart from that, winning is just not necessary!

Winning is important as it brings with it plenty of advantages. One of which is that one is able to gain world recognition and become famous. He or she is also able to build up his or her sporting reputation. With fame, one will attract the attention of media, sponsors and most importantly, sport teams. Famous teams will begin offering and persuading him or her to join them and one very simple method is to provide attractive remuneration or other incentives. In other words, the now famous athlete will begin to live a wealthy life. He or she will also be approached by sports companies such as Nike or Adidas, to appear in their advertisement to boost sales. This will provide a secondary source of income.

One athlete who had gained from such advantage is Lewis Hamilton; a rookie driver who started his Formula 1 career in 2007 and had since already won 5 grand prix. With this incredible result, he became well known and had media buzzing around him. He has also attracted the attention of various sponsors.

Money is the other rational advantage. With the commercialization of sports, the prize money for competitions had increased tremendously. Therefore the income of the athletes will be greatly increased. Take Tiger Woods as an example. For every event he wins, he takes home at least US$100m, and according to the Straits Times report, a financial analyst forecast that ‘Woods will be sport’s second billionaire before 2010’.

However, winning is not only about the prize. Apart from all the monetary benefits, winning can be used as a target. With the target in place, the athlete can work towards it by improving his or her skills and putting in his or her best efforts. Winning can also be used as a motivation or encouragement to continue to participate in the sport and also to increase the enjoyment the sports brings. For tournaments such as soccer, it is even more crucial to clinch the final overall win especially if one is very close to success. Otherwise all efforts, hard work and time spent on organization and preparation will go to waste and will pose as a discouragement. Hence, winning competitions is important.

However, there are times when it is not important to win, especially those playing sports for personal recreation or to improve their health. Most people regard sports as a form of exercise. There are others who love a particular sport and play it with passion and have no winning objective in mind. These people engage in sports simply to have fun. Thus, for the above scenarios, winning is just not necessary and neither is it important.

At times, being over-competitive and over-obsessed with winning can also spark off angers and arguments, thus threatening friendships. This contradicts the fact that sports is for leisure and fun.

I feel that people have to be wary of the different situations – at times, they have to strive for the win while other time, they just have to take a breather.

justin

Is Winning important in Sports?

There is no doubt that Winning is paramount in sports. Be it national players playing in a tournament, friends competing against each others or simply people playing recreationally, these people play their game and sub-consciously, they aim to win. There is hardly anyone who plays a game and does not aim to excel or win in their game. Simply put, the glory and perhaps reward for winning is too great a temptation for all of us to resist.

Take the example of the Olympic Games. These people scattered from all over the world, spent most of their lifetime just to practice in their own sport, aiming to do their best and constantly improving their skills, in order to have a chance to participate in this competition which is recognised worldwide. What accounts for their reason to participate in this competition that takes place every four years, instead of just being satisfied by joining perhaps minor competitions held in their own country itself? The reason apparantly, is that by winning the Olympic Games, these people gain glory, fame and also the cash reward, which some of us by working a lifetime, could not even get that amount of money. Therefore, these players participate in these competitions, with the sole mentality to excel, and to win. Now, some people may argue that a handful of participants do not participate just to win in these games, instead, it is just to gain the experience of playing against other players. However, to gain experience in this case, is simply to have a better chance to improve themselves, and to participate in the competition next time round to win it. Otherwise, there is no use in gaining experience if one does not aim to improve, and to strive to win in what they are doing.

Also, if winning is not important, there would not be people who uses drugs in competitions to enhance their performance just to win in it. These people, risk their lives, their future, just to make sure that they manage to win in what they are doing, in which they would gain glory and fame. However if they were to be discovered, they would be shamed and punished. Despite being aware of this fact, these people still put their future on the risk, and continued in doing so. This thus supports the statement which i have made earlier on - ''Simply put, the glory and perhaps reward for winning is too great a temptation for all of us to resist.''

To take on another example, Chelsea which is a football club that participates in soccer tournament, spent millions of dollars just to recruit professional football players into their team, in order to assist the team to victory. If winning is not important in Sports, there would not be these football clubs, spending a huge fortune just to get a hold of good players that might increase their chance of winning, and instead,these money could be put to better use, such as donating to charity which could help millions of unfortunate people. Also, if winning is not important in Sports, the football clubs would as well be satisfied in their original first formed team and continued playing the sport without any change of players. But the fact remains that there are hardly any football clubs which are formed and does not aim to win.

However, there is always an exception in life. There are a minority of people, who participate in sport games not just to win, but to broaden their view and make new friends, as well as enjoying what they are doing. These people may have the mentality to excel in what they are doing, and constantly improving their skills, but they do not just aim to win. These people enjoy the process of what they are doing, without any pressure or expectations to win, and can be called real sportsman/sportswoman.

All in all, the question ''Is Winning important in Sports?'' truly depends on every individual. Each and everyone of us would have differing views and opinions on this question which is frequently asked by people. In my opinion however, i truly agree that Winning is very important in Sports.

- Edmund

is winning the most important thing in sports?

Blinded by the hard and cold facts of life, it would seem that winning, not just in sports, is everything. The pessimists of the world would only look at all the hard work and training gone down the drain, the disappointment of not being the first, the title of a loser and not a winner even if you came in second. The quote of Damon Hill in the Sunday times also seems to wrap it all up with a rather convincing reason.

“Winning is everything. The only ones who remember you when you come second are your wife and your dog.”

Thus, the greedy and self centered people in this world would only think that winning is the most important thing in sports. However, these people fail to grasp the true essence of sports itself.

If winning was everything in sports, it would mean that every sportsmen and women started training themselves from young and devoting their lives to a certain sport just to win. That does not seem to be the case right? A true sportsman loves and enjoys the game he is playing, which is why he is willing to devote his entire life to that sport. This brings us to one of the true essence of sports. To have a passion for it, and most of all, enjoy it. One will not feel happy in doing something they do not enjoy, so even if their win lands them millions of dollars, it would come to naught as it can’t buy them happiness that every one thirsts for.

If winning was everything in sports, why would the top players of the world compete against each other? Why doesn’t Brazil fight against teams like Singapore in football then? Wouldn’t it be a confirmed victory for Brazil? If winning was everything in sports, everyone would want to play against Singapore and there would be no excitement at all watching the match. What sportsmen want is a challenge, a real test of their skills. Therefore its not the outcome of the sport that is important, but rather how the game is played. The score, after all, is just a figure.

If winning was everything in sports, people would not care for a fair match. Sportsmen could take all the steroids they want, and win, and people would still accept their victory. However in such a case, to whom does the glory go to? It goes to the pack of steroids in your bloodstream. Sportsmen push themselves to the limit, constantly training their body so that the victory they earn would be for them alone and not owed to some underhand means. Knowing that you did your best that you could have done nothing more to clinch that title is what counts, and by then you would gladly salute your victor for being able to do more than what you can. Losing is a priceless lesson on how you can improve yourself.

Sportsmanship is the most important of all in sports. You can be the victor, but if u become arrogant, you lose the respect from your spectators. After all, one must remember that the game would be nothing if you did not have an opponent. Therefore thanking your opponent after a victory is vital, as they have put your skills to the test, and have indirectly given you the gold. And if you lose, you have already lost, so you can either decide to sulk about it or instead feel happy for your opponent.

Sure, winning would be important as well, or most sportsmen would not have to aim for anything in a game. winning will drive people to do their best, so i guess that sports and winning would go hand in hand as well. however i feel that winning should not be the most important or the top most pirority, or we would end up losing our self respect in the attempt to win.

overall, i feel that winning is the most important for the greedy sportsman, but playing the game well is the most important for the true sportsman.

"you cant screw me now"- kenneth lo

language is not a barrier