- Sports ansd recreation charities

- "We should not spend money on sports but on health."

- "Cancer charities have helped lots of people and need our support."

- "Human rights issues should be addressed."

In aA TV programme were was discussing government priorities on funding non-profit organizations linked to charity.

I could notrecognize two of thise organizations: an institutions related to sports, as well as recreation, and one for health.

The last ones were focused on researching about incurable diseases, such as the different types of cancer and aids.

Both topics are intimately connecrelated, as sports, and some recreational activities, serve to prevent cancer and, generally speaking, andplays a part in the researching to finding a cure to it.

In this sense, politicians often have to deal with making a decision between two charity causes, both of which are extremely useful forto society.

In my humble opinion, it is not necessary to spend money inton promoting sports or recreational activities,; in ourmy country at least, since to a greater or lesser exten, to some extent at least, we are privileged ofto have public facilities aimed at this purpose.

Moreover, people do often do not hesitate, for example, to pay toso they can play their favourite sport in better conditions.

In this regard, I am partially agree with one of the participant's opinions showsn in the debate, whoas they stressed the importance of health beyond sports practice.

As I see it, more efforts should be doneput into medical researching, for which, and there is no choice but to do itso through a proper funding tof charity organizations.

Scientists spend so many years of their lives to achieveobtaining the high academic profile mandatoryrequisites needed for this position, and they are usually underpaid in exchange for itheir efforts.

What it is rather worst if it isIt's even worse when one takens into account how important it this this infor many people's lives, aswhich I heard infrom the TV discussion.

I'm not really sure what you were originally trying to say, so I took an educated guess.

In conclusion, more support should be given to help eradicate health problems which will that cannot be solved in another way, unlike what it happensthe case with sports and -related non-profit institutions.

In a TV programme, people were discussing government priorities on funding non-profit organizations linked to charity.

I could note two of thisese organizations: institutions related to sports, as well as recreation, and health.

The last ones weretter was focused on researching about regarding incurable diseases, such as different types of cancer and aidsAIDS.

Both topics are intimately connectclosely linked, as sports and some recreational activities serve to prevent cancer, generally speaking, and researching to find a cure to it...(?).

no está completa la oración.

In my humble opinion, it is not necessary to spend money inton promoting sports or recreational activities, in our country at least, since to a greater or lesser extent, we are privileged ofhave sufficient public facilities aimed atbuilt for this purpose.

Moreover, people do often not hesitate often, for example, to pay to play their favourite sport in better conditions.

In this regard, I am partially agree with one of the participant's opinions showsn in the debate, whoich stressed the importance of health beyond sports practice.

As I see it, more efforts should be dconecentrated in medical researching, for which there is no choice but to do it through a proper funding to charity organizations.

Scientists spend so many years of their lives to achieve the high academic profile mandato/obtain the credentials necessary for this position, and yet they are usually underpaid in exchange for itfor their work.

What it is rather worst if it is taken into account how important it is this in many people live, as I heard in the TV discussion. (?)

No entiendo esta parte.

In conclusion, more support should be given to help eradicate health problems which will not be solved in any other way, unlike what it happens with sports and related non-profit institutions.

In saw a TV programme werethat was discussing government priorities on funding charitable non-profit organizations linked to charity.

I could note two of thisnoticed two organizations: institutions related to sports, as well as recreation, and and recreation, as well as those concerning health.

The last ones wothere focused on researching about incurable diseases, such as different types of cancer and aidsAIDS.

Both topics are intimately connected, as sports and some recreational activities serve to prevent cancer, generally speaking, and researching to find a cure to it.

In this sense, politicians often have to deal with making a decisionmust decide between two charity causes, both of which are extremely (useful/beneficial) for society.

In my humble opinion, it is unot necessary to spend money inton promoting sports or recreational activities, at least in our country at least, since to a greater or lesser extent, we are privileged of public facilities aimed at this purpose, since we have ample public facilities that meet this need.

Moreover most people do often not hesitate, for example,opt to not to pay to play their favourite sport in better conditions.

If you're saying people don't like to pay to use these facilities: "opt to not"
If you're saying people are willing to use these facilities: "opt to"

In this regard, I am partially agree with one of the participant's opinions showsn in the debate, whoich stressed the importance of health beyond sports practice.

As I see it, more efforts should be done inedicated to medical researching, for which there is no choice but to do it through a proper funding to charity organizations.

Scientists spend so many years of their lives to achieve the high academic profile (mandatory/needed) for this position, and they are usually underpaid in exchange for it.

What it is rather worst if it isOne must taken into account how important it is this in many people's lives, as I hearmentioned in the TV discussion.

A little confused by what you're trying to say here!

In conclusion, more support should be given to help eradicate health problems which will not be solved in another way, unlike what it happens with sports and related non-profit institutions.