The grade on your work is a Projected Grade. It is not your final mark, but an assessment of the skills you have demonstrated. It estimates the score you could achieve in a full-length essay if you applied these same skills consistently throughout. The feedback is designed to help you develop these skills further.
This shows an argument FOR the statement.
This shows an argument AGAINST the statement.
This shows your Conclusion or overall Judgement.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
The question of whether rights should be conditional on responsibilities is a fundamental debate about the nature of justice.This opening sentence shows a strong understanding of the topic and uses sophisticated vocabulary. On one hand, it can be argued that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin.This is a clear topic sentence for the 'for' argument. The right to live in a safe society, for example, depends on every citizen fulfilling their responsibility not to harm others.This uses a specific example to make a clear point. Therefore, when a person commits a serious crime like murder, they have broken this social contract. In this view, taking away their right to liberty by sending them to prison is a logical and just consequence needed to protect society.This explains the reasoning behind the point, making the argument well-developed. On the other hand, the principle of universal human rights suggests that rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, regardless of a person's actions.This is a clear topic sentence introducing the counter-argument. This is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that all people are born free and equal.This uses specific evidence (the UDHR) to support the point, adding authority. From this perspective, even a criminal retains their fundamental rights, such as the right not to be tortured. To deny this would be to suggest that some people are less human than others, which is a dangerous path that could lead to abuse of power.This explains the negative consequences of the opposing view, which is a high-level skill. In conclusion, while it is necessary to remove certain rights like liberty as a punishment for serious crimes, I believe that fundamental human rights must always remain protected.This conclusion is nuanced. It doesn't just agree or disagree but offers a sophisticated middle-ground. A just society is not defined by how it treats its best citizens, but by how it treats its worst. Stripping people of their basic human dignity, no matter their actions, is a form of cruelty that ultimately harms society as a whole.This final sentence provides a powerful, philosophical justification for the conclusion.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Many people agree with this as rights and responsibities go together, so if you dont fufill your full responsibilities you shouldn't expect full rights as there are other people who have worked hard for their rights and rights are something you need to accomplish.This is a very clear and well-explained paragraph for the 'agree' side of the argument. On the other hand, many people disagree with this because human rights belong to everyone and no one can take them away from you no matter what. Also the 30th Human right is no one can take your human rights.Excellent! Using a specific article from the UDHR makes your argument much more powerful. Also people may fail to fufill their responsibilities for reason beyond their control for example poverty.This is a superb, empathetic point. Considering the reasons behind people's actions is a very high-level skill. the first human right is we should are all born fair and equal, so if we are equal we should all have human rights even if we dont fufill our responsibilities. To conclude, I believe people should not loose their human rights if they do not fufill their responsibilities as rights are essential for every human.This is a clear conclusion that states your final judgement. Also according to the UDHR we are all born free and equal and no one can take our human rights. This shows that no one can take your rights if you dont fufill your responsibilities as its a right to have human rights which means everyone should have rights because we are all equal.You do a great job of using the UDHR to support your final argument.
Your 'agree' paragraph is good. To make it even better, you could add a specific example to illustrate your point, like this:
Many people agree that rights and responsibilities go together.This is your original, strong point. For example, the right to drive a car comes with the responsibility to follow the speed limit. If you break that responsibility by speeding, you may lose your driving licence.This new part uses a clear, real-world example to make your point much more concrete and convincing. This shows that some rights are earned and can be lost if we don't act responsibly.This explains what the example proves.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree that people rights should be taken away due to an act of uncitizenship which may of caused a disruption of through-out a village, town or city.This is a good point, linking the loss of rights to the idea of being a bad citizen and causing disruption. However, some may disagree with this statement as they are just human and humans make mistakes and that's fine.It's great that you are immediately showing the other side of the argument. This person shouldn't have to face discrimination, racism, slavery or worse. Human rights belong to everyone - they can't be taken away, no matter what someone does. Rights are universal as well as unconditional, not a reward for good behavior.This is an excellent explanation of the principle of universal human rights. Using words like 'unconditional' and 'not a reward' is very powerful. Despite all those reasons, I personally believe that everyone's rights should be protect, even those who make mistakes (which is everyone) and people who show true fairness and justice.This is a strong and well-reasoned conclusion that clearly states your final judgement.
Your point about universal rights is fantastic. To make it even stronger, you could support it with a specific example, like this:
Human rights belong to everyone and are unconditional, not a reward for good behavior.This is your original, excellent point. For example, the right not to be tortured is a universal human right. Even if a person has committed a terrible crime and completely failed in their responsibilities, they still keep this right.This new part uses a very powerful and specific example to prove your point. This shows that these fundamental rights cannot be taken away, no matter what.This links the example back to your main idea.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they believe that people should fulfill their responsibilites otherwise they lose their rights as a thing that is ok.This is a good, clear start to your 'for' paragraph. For example, if a kid gets sent homework and it is not done they think that it is ok for that child to lost their right to an education.This is a good, clear example to illustrate your point. However, some people think that it is not ok for people to lose their rights after not fulfilling their responsibilities because they think that their should be a less harsh consequence given.Excellent - you are now showing the other side of the argument. As an example, if there is a such thing as a detention which is a fair punishment given rather than for the government to take away your right which other people think is not right.This is another great example. Using detention as a 'less harsh consequence' is a very thoughtful point. To conclude, I personally believe that people shouldn't lose their rights after fulfilling their responibilities because their should be a less harsh punishment (which there is) which would be a detention.This is a good conclusion that gives a clear answer to the question, supported by the examples you have used.
Your point about detention is excellent. You could develop it further by explaining *why* it's a better solution, like this:
Some people believe a less harsh consequence should be given. For example, a detention is a fair punishment for not doing homework.This is your original, excellent point. This is a better approach because it is a proportional response; it punishes the student without denying them their fundamental right to an education.This new sentence uses sophisticated language ('proportional response') to explain WHY it's a better punishment. It allows the student to learn from their mistake while still being able to access their education.This explains the positive outcome.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I agree that people should lose rights if they do not fulfil their responsibilities.A very clear start that states your opinion directly. In school, if a studen does not do their homework or follow cllas rules (their responsibilities) They might lose break time or get detention. This means they temporarily lose the right to play freely.This is a fantastic, relatable example that clearly explains your point. At home if a child refuses to tidy their room, parens might take away scren timy showing the right to use devies is linked to doing chores.Another excellent, clear example! If someone ignores responsibilities, like a drive speeding and breaking road rules, they can lose their driving licence. This protect others and teaches that righs are earned, not automatic.This is a brilliant, more serious example. Explaining that it 'protects others' is a very strong justification. Overall, losing rights for failing responsibilities keep thing fair and safe for everyone, just like in class or on the playground.This is a good concluding sentence that summarises your main argument.
You have made a great case for your side. To make it a balanced essay, you need to add a paragraph that shows the other side, like this:
On the other hand, many people would disagree with this idea.This phrase clearly introduces the counter-argument. They believe that fundamental human rights are universal, meaning they belong to everyone no matter what.This explains the main principle of the opposing view. For example, the right not to be tortured should apply to everyone, even the worst criminals. Taking this right away would be cruel and inhumane.This uses a strong example to support the counter-argument.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I disagree with this statement because some people may lose the right for clean water as punishment and some people may say that they can take away a small right but I think they are all important.A good start with a clear opinion and a strong example (clean water). Human rights belong to everyone no matter the circumstance, unless you are in prison then you lose the right for freedom but that can protect someone so it has to be taken away.This is an excellent, nuanced point. You are showing that you understand some rights can be taken away for good reason. The only other time may be when you are hate-speeching and lose your right to talk.Another sophisticated example of a justifiable limit on a right. Overall this is my main point, and if I had to pick a side with the statement "people should lose their rights, if they do not fulfill their responsibilities" I would say I disagree for no-one deserves such horrible treatment towards them.A clear conclusion that summarises your overall judgement.
To create a balanced essay, you need to include the 'for' argument. You could add a paragraph like this:
On the other hand, some people would agree with the statement, arguing that rights must be earned through responsible behaviour.This clearly introduces the opposing view. For example, they might say that the right to be trusted by society is not automatic. If a person is irresponsible and commits crimes, they lose that right and are monitored by the police.This provides a clear example for the 'for' side. This shows that some rights are conditional on our actions.This explains the logic of the argument.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if someone abuses their rights to hurt others, limiting them may protect society.This is a fantastic opening point, clearly explaining the 'for' argument with strong reasoning. For example, by having the right to not have their rights taken away, someone may take advantage of it and do as they please all the time since they believe they can get away with it.This is a good explanation of the potential negative consequences of rights being unconditional. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because they believe that protecting everyone's rights, even those who make mistakes shows true fairness and justice.Excellent - you are now showing balance by clearly explaining the 'against' argument. Many religious people will also disagree with this statement because their God may instruct them to treat everyone with kindness, no matter what they have done in the past.Bringing in a religious perspective is an original and insightful way to support this point. To conclude, I personally believe that people should not lose their rights if they do not fulfill their responsibilities as it may not be in their control.This is a very thoughtful and empathetic conclusion that considers the reasons behind people's actions.
Your point about protecting society is excellent. To make it even stronger, you could use a specific example of a right being limited, like this:
Some people agree that limiting rights can protect society.This is your original, strong point. For example, a person has the right to free speech, but they have a responsibility not to use it to incite violence. If a person uses their speech to start a riot, their right to freedom can be temporarily taken away by being arrested.This new part uses a specific, real-world example (free speech vs. inciting violence) to make your argument very clear. This shows that rights can be limited when they are used to harm others.This explains what the example proves.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people might agree because, if someone breaks the law, they have to lose some of their rights (like freedom when in prison with an ankle monitor).This is a great start, using a clear and specific example to support the 'for' argument. The reason why someone might say this is because someone is harming or is abusing their right or the law so surely that they have to pay the price.Good explanation of the reasoning behind this viewpoint. On the other hand, people could disagree because, in article 30 it says that nobody can take away your rights...Excellent! Citing a specific article of the UDHR is a high-level skill that adds real authority to your argument. They could think this since, because people might not be able to fufill their responsibilities if they have a lack of education or they're in poverty.This is a very sophisticated and empathetic point, showing you are thinking about the root causes of people's actions. Conclusion. I agree because you need to fufill your responsibilitys.This conclusion is too simple and doesn't reflect the complex arguments you made earlier. and if they don't, they should have to be punished and lose at least 1 or 2 of their rights.
Your arguments are great. You just need a conclusion that reflects that complexity, like this:
In conclusion, although some rights like freedom must be taken away as a punishment for breaking the law, I ultimately disagree with the statement.This shows a nuanced view, acknowledging both sides. As I argued, people sometimes cannot fulfil their responsibilities for reasons beyond their control, like poverty. It would be unjust to punish them by taking away their fundamental human rights.This summarises your strongest argument. Therefore, society should focus on supporting people rather than punishing them.This gives a powerful final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I can agree with this statement because they have proven themselves worthy that they do not deserve such rights.A clear statement of your opinion. This is given evidence that people should do the correct things (which is their responsibilities) to have responsibilities and one if they want their rights not to be taken away.This explains the link between rights and responsibilities well. I can also disagree that 'if people do not fullfill their rights they should lose their responsibilities' because maybe they might not have the resources and to be able to fullfill their responsibilities.Excellent - you are now showing the other side of the argument. For example if you need to feed your child but you have been made redundant and have no money. Taking your rights away will even make you situation even worse as you have no one will listen to you if you try to seek help.This is an outstanding, empathetic example that powerfully explains why taking rights away could be harmful and unjust. In conclusion, I personally belive that rights should not be taken away no matter what.A clear, if simple, conclusion.
Your conclusion is clear, but you could make it more powerful by summarising your excellent example, like this:
In conclusion, I believe that rights should not be taken away.This is your clear judgement. As my example shows, people can sometimes fail their responsibilities for reasons they cannot control, such as being made redundant. Taking their rights away would only make their situation worse and be deeply unfair.This summarises your strongest point and explains your reasoning. Therefore, society should support people in need, not punish them further.This gives a strong final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may agree with the statement because for example the right to go to school means the child has the responsibility to go to school. If the child chooses not to then that is not using the right they have been given justifying that rights should be taken if the responsibilities that come with it are disregarded.This is an excellent paragraph that uses a clear, relatable example to perfectly explain the 'for' argument. However some may strongly disagree because some responsibilities are hard to keep consistant like going to work every day because of illness or tiredness which need to be acknowledged meaning not all responsibilities in a right can be fufiled.This is another excellent and very thoughtful point, considering the real-world difficulties of always fulfilling responsibilities. To conclude I personally believe that if responsibilities aren't fuciled, rights should still apply because no one is perfect and if rights were taken away many people, mainly children would starve and die on the streets.A strong conclusion that gives a clear judgement and a powerful, emotional justification.
Your conclusion is powerful. You could link it back to your earlier points to make it even more logical, like this:
To conclude, I believe that rights should still apply even if responsibilities aren't fulfilled.This is your clear judgement. As I argued, people can't always meet their responsibilities due to things like illness. It would be wrong to take away their rights for something that isn't their fault.This links back to your previous point. If we did this, people who are sick and can't work could lose their right to support, and might starve. This shows why rights must be protected for everyone.This explains the logical link to your powerful final image.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
People may agree with the following quote as for example a child doesn't complete their homework; this shows they don't care about their responsibilities. Why should a teacher have the right to allow them to be educated, if the child doesn't take the anitiative to take their responsibilities to educate themeselves?This is a great paragraph that uses a clear example and a rhetorical question to make a strong argument for the 'agree' side. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement as humans always make mistake. For example you forget take out the rubbish; it isn't your fault. Stripping someone of their rights for the smallest mistakes would be discrinmantion and wrong.This is another excellent paragraph, providing a clear counter-argument with a good contrasting example. To conclude, I personally believe that although it is important to fulfill responsibilities, it is important not to forget that rights are something everyone needs. For some people, it is the thing that protects them from death. This is why I strongly disagree with this quote.A powerful and well-reasoned conclusion that weighs both sides before giving a final judgement.
You can elevate your excellent points by using a more serious example outside of school, like this:
Some people agree with the statement and believe that rights should be conditional.This clearly states the point. For example, they might argue that if a person commits a serious crime like assault, they have failed their responsibility to keep others safe. Therefore, it is a fair consequence that their right to freedom is taken away by sending them to prison.This uses a more serious, societal example which is great for showing your understanding of the topic in a wider context.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
The statement may be agreed as Rights and responsibilities go together. For example, without responsibilities, rights wouldn't be followed.A clear explanation of the link between rights and responsibilities. For example, if you want to go to school, you need to be responsible to listen to the teacher or you never do your homework. Therefore, you must be responsible to have rights.This is a good, clear, school-based example to make your point. On the other hand, people may oppose this as taking away rights can lead to abuse of power and unfair treatment.Excellent - a clear and well-reasoned point for the opposing argument. For example, if you no longer had the right of safety, you could be mistreated or attacked. Futhermore, article 30 states that no one can take away your human right so by this, people would be breaking your rights.Another fantastic point, using a specific article to add authority to your argument. To conclude, in my opnion, everyone deserves rights whether there irresponsible or not.A clear, if simple, conclusion.
Your point about abuse of power is brilliant. You could make it the focus of your conclusion to make it more powerful, like this:
In conclusion, I believe everyone deserves rights, whether they are responsible or not.This is your clear final judgement. The main reason is that allowing rights to be taken away would lead to a dangerous abuse of power. It could allow governments or powerful people to punish others unfairly.This explains your reasoning, using your strongest point. Therefore, to keep everyone safe, human rights must be universal and protected by law for all people.This provides a strong final sentence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Well for rights to be followed you need to show respect. If you don't show respect those rights wont really work.This shows you understand the basic link between rights and responsibilities. Well some people might aggree since your not showing why be given rights in the first place.A simple but clear point for the 'agree' side. On the other hand some people disagree since even though they can't show respect they can still deserve their rights like everyone else.Good, you are showing the other side of the argument. To conclude I personally believe that people should not have their rights took away since every one deserves equalaty and fair desicions even if we might not respect them.A good concluding sentence that gives your personal opinion.
You can easily improve your points by adding a 'because' and a 'for example'. Look at this version of your 'agree' point:
Some people agree with the statement because they believe that rights are earned by showing respect for others.This adds a 'because' to explain the point. For example, if a person does not respect the law and decides to steal from someone, they have not acted responsibly.This adds a specific example. Therefore, they should lose their right to freedom as a punishment.This explains the consequence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if someone abuses their rights to hurt others, limiting their rights can protect society.This is an excellent start, with a very clear and well-reasoned point for the 'for' side. However, people may strongly disagree with this statement because people may fail their responsibilities for reasons beyond their control (like poverty, or lack of education).This is a superb counter-argument. Showing this level of empathy and considering the root causes of actions is a very high-level skill. This is because people are discriminating against those people. Also, it is the government who is unable to provide them with support.This is a brilliant development of your point, linking personal failure to a potential failure of the government. To conclude, I personally believe that their rights shouldn't be taken away because number 30 on the rights of humans is that your rights can't be taken away.A good conclusion that uses a specific piece of evidence (Article 30) to support your final judgement.
Your conclusion is good, but it could be even better if it summarised your best point from the essay, like this:
In conclusion, I personally believe that rights should not be taken away.This states your clear judgement. While limiting rights can sometimes protect society, it is unjust to punish people who fail their responsibilities for reasons beyond their control, like poverty or a lack of education.This summarises your excellent and unique argument. As Article 30 of the UDHR states, human rights are for everyone and cannot be taken away.This uses your strong evidence to support your final point.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may agree because people take advantage of their rights to hurt people sometimes. For example, if a person were to sexually assult one other, they'd usually be sent to jail/prison. In this instant, the assaulter would lose some of their rights e.g freedom.This is an excellent paragraph for the 'agree' side. It uses a very serious and powerful example to make its point clearly. Some people may disagree because every human deserves rights and to be treated fairly hence the words 'Human Rights'.Good - you are now clearly presenting the counter-argument. For example, if you were a teacher and you came to work late everyday, you shouldn't lose your right to work just because of that. If the teacher were to be fired, they'd not be able to pay bills...which is also losing a few other rights e.g food and shelter for all.This is a very well-developed example, showing that you are thinking about the wider consequences of losing a right. This wouldn't be fair on the teacher, especially if it was only a small thing. I personally disagree with this statement because human rights are for everyone, even if they're a bad person, they're still human.A clear conclusion that states your final opinion.
Your conclusion could be improved by linking it back to the excellent examples you've already used, like this:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This is your clear judgement. While serious crimes like assault must lead to a loss of freedom, the idea of taking away rights for 'small things' like being late for work is unfair and disproportionate.This weighs up your two examples. Because it is difficult to decide which mistakes are 'bad enough', it is safer and fairer to say that fundamental human rights belong to everyone, no matter what.This explains your final reasoning.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if someone doesn't fulfill their responsibilites then they have can't follow their rights. People don't follow their responsibilities and punishments are not effective any more so taking away their rights will make them learn from it.A clear and well-explained argument for the 'agree' side. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because human rights belong to everyone and they can't be taken away no matter what they do.Good - a clear explanation of the counter-argument. For example if there is traffic and they show up late to work they can't control that. Everyone makes mistakes at one point in their life so that doesn't mean you should take away their rights.This is a great point, showing that some failures are beyond a person's control. To conclude I personally believe that they shouldn't take away rights if they do not fulfill their responsibilities because this would only lead to abuse of power which could go wrong in many ways.This is an outstanding conclusion. Identifying the 'abuse of power' as the main danger is a very high-level and insightful point. In the UDHR it states no one can take away human rights... if you take it away from someone it means you are breaking the law.Excellent use of evidence to support your conclusion.
You can make your 'disagree' paragraph even stronger by including your excellent point about abuse of power from the conclusion, like this:
However, some may strongly disagree because human rights belong to everyone and can't be taken away.This is your clear main point. This is because allowing rights to be removed could lead to an abuse of power, where people in charge could punish others unfairly.This introduces your best argument earlier in the essay. Furthermore, as the UDHR states, taking away someone's human rights is against international law.This links it to your strong evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
People would agree with the following statement because if you don't fulfil your responsibilities as a human then why should you get human rights like the other people who fulfil there responsibilities.A clear and logical explanation of the 'for' argument, based on the idea of fairness. Some people on the other hand would disagree with the following statement because they say that first the UDHR made a set of human rights that we should follow and second at the end of the day we all are humans and even though we don't fulfil our responsibilities we still have our rights simply because we are human.Excellent - you've clearly explained the 'against' argument and supported it with a key piece of evidence (the UDHR). In conclusion I personaly think that I disagree with the statement because if the person does something bad you can punish them but not in a severe way that you take their human rights away because then within a second of doing that they become "less worthy" which means that you can do anything to the person and nobody would care.This is an outstanding conclusion. The idea that taking rights away makes someone 'less worthy' and vulnerable to further abuse is a very powerful and sophisticated point.
To improve your 'for' paragraph, you just need to add a specific example to your already clear reasoning, like this:
Some people agree with the statement because of fairness. They ask why someone should keep all their rights if they don't fulfill their responsibilities.This is your original, strong reasoning. For example, if a person commits a serious assault, they have failed their responsibility to not harm others. In this case, it seems fair that they should lose their right to freedom by going to prison.This new part adds a specific example to make your argument more concrete.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may agree with this statement because people believe that if you commit a crime, you should give up one of your rights, or limit them to protect society.A clear and well-explained point for the 'agree' side. On the other hand, some people may disagree because as the UDHR says, human rights are universal and unconditional. They are not rewards for good behavior.Excellent. You've clearly explained the 'disagree' side and supported it with a key piece of evidence (the UDHR) and excellent vocabulary ('unconditional'). In addition, human rights belong to everyone, they can't be taken away no matter what someone does.Good reinforcement of the point. So in conclusion, I disagree because human rights are universal you can't take them from someone because its illegal and may be classified as slavery.A strong conclusion that gives a clear judgement and uses powerful language ('illegal', 'slavery') to justify it.
Your conclusion is very powerful. You can make it even stronger by explaining the link to slavery, like this:
In conclusion, I disagree because human rights are universal.This is your clear final judgement. Taking rights away is illegal under international law, as stated in the UDHR.This uses your strong evidence. Furthermore, forcing someone to live without their basic rights, such as the right to freedom or fair treatment, is a form of control that could be classified as slavery.This new sentence explains the logical link to your powerful keyword, making the argument much more convincing.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if someone abuses their rights to hurt others, limiting their rights can protect society.This is a clear and well-reasoned point for the 'agree' side. Rights and responsibilities go together - if you ignore your duties, you shouldn't expect full rights... if someone refuses, they shouldn't get the same benifits.Good explanation of the link between rights and responsibilities. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because human rights belong to everyone - they cant be taken away, no matter what someone does, and rights are universal and unconditional, not rewards for good behaviour.This is an excellent explanation of the opposing view, using strong vocabulary like 'universal' and 'unconditional'. Taking away rights can lead to abuse of power and unfair treatment.This is a superb point, identifying one of the biggest dangers of making rights conditional. To conclude, I personally believe that the person's rights should not be taken away because everyone should be treated eaquily and if their rights get taken it could also lead to abuse of power.A great conclusion that summarises your strongest argument and gives a clear final judgement.
Your point about 'abuse of power' is excellent. You can make it even stronger by providing a specific (even if imaginary) example, like this:
Taking away rights can lead to abuse of power and unfair treatment.This is your original, excellent point. For example, if a government had the power to take away rights, they could decide that protesting against them is 'irresponsible'.This provides a specific, realistic scenario. They could then use this as an excuse to take away the protestors' right to free speech, which would be an abuse of power and turn the country into a dictatorship.This explains the dangerous outcome, making your argument very powerful.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if people are not doing good in their community and are breaking laws why do they deserve rights.This is a clear point for the 'agree' side, based on the idea of fairness and deserving rights. For example, they could break somebody else's right and still have all their rights.A good, simple example to illustrate the point. However, some may strongly disagree with this statment because rights are not earned they are given to everybody no matter their race, background, skin colour, religin and many other things.Excellent - you've clearly explained the principle of universal rights and given great examples of the factors that don't affect them. The point of the United Nations... was to make sure everyone had Rights.Good use of evidence to support your point. To conclude, I personally believe everbody should have rights as if somebody had there rights taken away they could be treated badly and it would be okay to.This is a good conclusion that explains the dangerous consequence of taking rights away.
Your conclusion is very good. You can develop it further by explaining the process of how someone becomes vulnerable, like this:
To conclude, I believe everybody should have rights.This is your clear judgement. If somebody had their rights taken away, they would no longer be protected by the law. This would mean they could be treated badly by others, and it would be seen as "okay" because they are no longer considered equal.This new sentence explains the link between losing rights and being treated badly. This is why rights must apply to everyone, to protect us all.This gives a strong final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because it's almost like the law and if you someone breaks the law, they are doing something illegal and deserves consequences.A clear explanation of the 'for' argument, linking it to the concept of law and consequences. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because in the U.D.H.R number thirty says 'No one can take away your rights'.Excellent! Using a specific article from the UDHR is a great way to support your point. I would personally agree with both of the sides of the arguments, but I do mostly agree because even though it might just be a mistake but people should know the rules/rights by now.This is a little confusing. You need to make a clear decision about which side you find more convincing overall.
A good conclusion makes a clear choice. Based on your writing, a conclusion like this would fit well:
In conclusion, although the UDHR makes a strong case that rights can't be taken away, I mostly agree with the statement.This states a clear, final judgement. This is because society can only function if there are consequences for breaking the law. People have a responsibility to know the rules, and if they choose to do something illegal, they must face the consequence of losing some of their rights, such as their freedom.This explains your final reasoning.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree to this statement, arguing that the consequences are not enough. For example, if you were to be imprisoned or sanctioned, there will always be an end no matter what. This is why many people would want their taken away.This is an interesting and original point for the 'agree' side. However on the other hand, many people would disagree to this statement due to the fact there are already punishments for this and can be really harsh and cruel. For an example, being grounded can be horrible because of your rights of playing can be taken away.A good counter-argument with a clear, relatable example. Although this both sides have very well arguments, I disagree because of the fact there are already consequences for responsibilities not being fulfilled.This is a good conclusion that makes a clear judgement and provides a logical reason.
Your point about existing punishments is great. You could develop it using a more serious example, like this:
I disagree with the statement because there are already serious consequences for failing to meet our responsibilities.This is your original, strong point. For example, if someone breaks the law by committing a robbery, they are already punished by having their freedom taken away when they are sent to prison.This uses a more serious, real-world example. Taking away even more of their rights, like the right to food or safety, would be an additional, cruel punishment that is unnecessary.This explains WHY the existing punishments are enough.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this point because sometimes people may take advantage and do not fulfil their duty's by saying they have the right to do whatever they want as they have freedom and use this excuse to not do their work.This is a great point, explaining how the concept of 'rights' can sometimes be abused. However, some may strongly disagree because sometimes people make mistakes and forgiving them is the right thing to do also no one can take away your right which is stated in article 30 in UDHR.Excellent - you've provided two clear reasons for the 'disagree' side, supported by specific evidence. To conclude, I personally disagree because everyone deserves to have rights, to be safe. Sometimes people want to fulfil their dutys but were not able to due to some person so they shouldn't be getting their rights taken away.A good conclusion that makes a clear judgement and considers the reasons why people might fail their responsibilities.
Your point about taking advantage of freedom is great. You could make it even stronger with a specific example:
Some people agree because rights can be taken advantage of.This is your original point. For example, a person might use their right to free speech as an excuse to spread lies and hatred about another group of people.This provides a clear, real-world example of a right being abused. In this case, they have not fulfilled their responsibility to be respectful, and so it could be argued that their right to free speech should be limited.This explains the consequence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because if people didn't do what they are meant to, there would be alot of chaos. For example, there has been incidents where people would not do what they need to which could conflict or wars.A good point for the 'agree' side, focusing on the need for order in society. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because some rights include drones for danger in them which result in people losing their lives. In addition, some rights include education, food and water or protection.This point is a little confusing. How do rights 'include drones'? It seems you might have misunderstood something here. To conclude, I personally believe that people should not lose their rights because if the world would be alot more chaotic because more crimes would be commited and the death toll might increase by alot.A strong conclusion that clearly explains the dangerous consequences of taking people's rights away.
Instead of the point about drones, you could make a clearer argument like this:
However, many people disagree because they believe rights are essential for survival.This is a clear topic sentence. For example, the right to food, water and shelter are basic human rights. If these rights were taken away from people as a punishment, they would not be able to live.This provides a clear example and explains the consequence. Therefore, these fundamental rights must be protected for everyone, no matter what.This links the point back to the main idea.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because society only works when everyone contributes and if someone refuses then they shouldn't recieve the same benefits and treatment.A very clear and well-reasoned argument for the 'for' side, based on the idea of a social contract. For instans if there is a person who continously abuses someone... he shouldn't have the right that may be crucial or essential to him as he abuses someone elses rights.A good, specific example to illustrate your point. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because 'Rights' are universal and unconditional, not rewards for good behaviour.Excellent - a clear explanation of the opposing view with strong vocabulary. For example if someone does something good for just a day or a short period of time that is not consistent then they just can't recieve it just for that one thing.This is an interesting and original example to explain why rights shouldn't be treated as rewards. To conclude I personally believe that people shouldn't lose their rights if they don't fulfill their responsibilitas because human rights have been reinforced so everbody feels safe and Article 30 of the UDHR says nobody can take away your human rights.A strong conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with specific evidence.
Your point about rights not being rewards is very clever. You could develop it to make the logic even clearer, like this:
I disagree because rights are unconditional, not rewards for good behaviour.This is your original, excellent point. You do not gain human rights by doing something good, so logically, you should not lose them for doing something bad. They are separate from our behaviour.This new sentence clearly explains the logic of your argument. Instead, bad behaviour should be dealt with through a fair justice system, while our fundamental rights remain protected for everyone.This offers a solution.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I personally believe that is responsibilities aren't fuciled, rights should still apply because no one is perfect and if rights were taken away many people, mainly children would starve and die on the streets.This is a strong concluding statement with a powerful emotional point, but it's presented without any build-up.
To build a full answer, you need to add paragraphs explaining the 'for' and 'against' arguments before your conclusion, like this:
Paragraph 1 (For): Some people agree with the statement because they believe rights come with duties. For example, if you don't fulfil your duty to follow the law, you should lose your right to freedom.
Paragraph 2 (Against): However, other people disagree because rights are universal. Taking away rights like the right to food or shelter would be cruel and could lead to people starving, as you said in your conclusion.
Your Conclusion: Therefore, I believe rights should still apply...
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may suongly agree with this statement because people may feel there should lose their rights because you have to sufill your responsibilities.A clear, if simple, explanation of the 'for' argument. And you should lose your rights because responsibilities are like rules so if you don't do them there should be consequences for it.This is a good analogy, comparing responsibilities to rules. Hausver some people may suongly disagree with this statement because everyone should have rights reagardless of what they do and everyone deserves to have their say in things.Good - you are now clearly explaining the counter-argument. And responsibilities are not allways easy to do so its not reasonable for your rights to be taken away.This is a very thoughtful and empathetic point. To conclud I personally belive they should not lose their reghts because everyone deserves them.A clear conclusion stating your final opinion.
Your point about responsibilities being hard to fulfil is excellent. You could make it even stronger with a specific example:
I disagree because responsibilities are not always easy to fulfil, so it isn't reasonable to take rights away.This is your original, insightful point. For example, a single parent working two jobs might struggle to get their child to school on time every single day. They are trying their best but failing a responsibility because of difficult circumstances.This provides a specific and empathetic example. It would be incredibly unfair to take away their rights in this situation.This explains why the punishment would be wrong.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Someone might agree to this statement because it could help protect people and serve as a punishment. This can also help them become more responsible and used as a lesson.A clear explanation of the 'for' argument, with good reasoning. On the other hand some one might disagree because it is cruel and everyone is human no matter what they did.Good - you are now clearly showing the opposing argument. Also it is stated on article 30 that your human rights are protected by law and no one can take your rights away.Excellent use of a specific piece of evidence to support your point. In my oppinion it is wrong to take away someones human rights so I disagree. This is because the UDHR was formed to stop the unfairness and make things equal.A good conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with evidence.
You make a great point about protecting people. You can make it even stronger by adding a specific example:
Some people agree with the statement because taking away certain rights can help to protect people.This is your original, clear point. For example, if a person is convicted of dangerous driving, their right to a driving licence can be taken away.This provides a specific, real-world example. This is a fair punishment that also protects other people on the road from a driver who has proven to be irresponsible.This explains why the action is justified.