Gambits - is it worth the price?

This is the first time I tried to write an article on Chess.com, so if you have any suggestions, please tell me.

Back in the 19th and early 20th century pawns were thrown away in the openings. The only thing that mattered was a chance to attack, not material. Nowadays, however, players are way more cautious, as the art of defending are slowly, and sometimes, secretly discovered.

The position at the very bottom is arrived from the Danish Gambit. What do you see? White is down two pawns, however has his two bishops on important diagonals, while black has nothing changed from his position other than a hole on e7. Yet, analysts discovered that black has not yet totally lost, and it is still perfectly playable. I also find the bishops not that much of a hassle after one of them is traded, by moves such as Bishop to e6. 

One main continuation after the diagram position is d5, giving back one of the pawns to white. After 6. Bxd5 Nf6, white can regain back another pawn by playing 7 Bxf7 Kxf7 8. Qxd8 Bb4+ 9.Qd2 Bxd2+ 10. Nxd2, after, which, stated by most analysts that black has a slight advantage due to his queenside pawn majority.

Another line is 5... d6, followed by the devlopment of his kingside pieces. Then, Be6, trading off one of the bishops gives black a easier game.

In conclusion, I just wants to say that this article was not written to go against gambits. It is simply written to say that while gambits give the player who is throwing away material a practice for his or her tactics, it also gives the player accepting the gambit a practice for his or her defence skills, which is just as important.  I used to play gambits myself, and i still sometimes do (king's gambit, Danish Gambit, Benko Gambit). I found them work extremely well in fast games.