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)'
On one hand, some people may agree with this statement because they are not accepting what they are given eventhough instead of leaving that to person is not fulfilling their responsibility.This is a clear point for the 'agree' side, based on the idea that rights are a gift that shouldn't be taken for granted. Why not give it to someone who needs it? In the UDHR they have made 30 human rights. Responsibility is the 24th Right.It's good that you are referencing the UDHR, but be careful - responsibility is a concept, not a specific right listed in the declaration. On the other hand, some people may disagree with this because Human Rights save peoples lives. It allows them to be free and so they can do many things.Good - a clear counter-argument explaining why rights are so important. In the UDHR, there are many rules that protect us and keep us away from danger. But the last one, the 30th Human Right protects us from anyone which is No one can take away your Human Rights.Excellent! Citing a specific article of the UDHR is a high-level skill that makes your argument very strong.
You have all the ingredients for a great essay. You just need to add a final paragraph to state your judgement, like this:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This clearly states your final opinion. Although people should be responsible, the UDHR makes it clear that fundamental rights cannot be taken away. As Article 30 states, "No one can take away your human rights."This uses your strongest piece of evidence to justify your decision. This is the most important principle because it protects everyone from unfair treatment.This gives a final, powerful reason.
'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 rights come with responsibility, if someone was to refuse, then they shouldn't get the same benefits as others.A very clear and well-reasoned point for the 'agree' side. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because rights are universal and unconditional, not rewards for good behavior. This means that human rights belong to everyone.Excellent explanation of the counter-argument, using superb vocabulary ('universal', 'unconditional'). Taking away people's rights could eventually lead to abuse of power and unfair treatment.This is a very insightful point, explaining the potential danger of making rights conditional. To conclude, I personally people shouldn't lose their rights. This is because you should protect everyone's rights, even those people make mistakes, and it shows true fairness and justice.A clear and well-reasoned conclusion that summarises your main argument. I also think this because people may fail in their responsibilities for reasons beyond their control (like lack of education for example).This is an outstanding, empathetic point to add to your conclusion.
Your point about 'abuse of power' is brilliant. You could make it even stronger by adding a specific example to your 'disagree' paragraph:
I disagree because taking away rights could lead to an abuse of power and unfair treatment.This is your original, excellent point. For example, a corrupt government could claim that people who protest against them are being 'irresponsible'.This provides a specific, real-world 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 shows why rights must be unconditional to protect people from those in power.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 strongly agree with this statement because there are people in the world that do really bad stufg which might make others really upset and will cause people to start protesting.A clear point for the 'agree' side, linking bad actions to social unrest. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because if a person gets detained without any reason it will cause wars between certain people and without human rights people would be slaughtered and people will not live in harmony.This is a very powerful counter-argument, explaining the extreme negative consequences of a world without rights. To conclude I personally believe everyone should have human rights so people can live in peace without their loves ones dicing or people not having acess to water, food or air because without these certain stufg everyone will be dead.A very strong and effective conclusion that summarises your most powerful argument.
Your point about living in harmony is great. You could make it even stronger by using a specific right as an example:
I disagree because without human rights, people could not live in harmony.This is your original, strong point. For example, everyone has a right to a fair trial. If this right were taken away, the government could imprison people without any reason ("detain them without any reason").This uses your own words and links them to a specific right. This would cause people to lose trust in the system, leading to chaos and conflict. Therefore, rights are essential for a peaceful society.This explains the chain of consequences.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
People may strongly agree with this statement. if they don't take responiblity for their actions because it could damage others physical and mental state. It can distrust them from learning and could even influence others to do the same which will make the world a dangerous place.This is an excellent 'for' paragraph, with very clear and well-explained reasoning about the wider societal impact. Although that is the case for the people who agree, there are still people that disagree with this statement. As it does go against Right so Artical 30 (no one can take your rights away). this shows that even if they did something wrong you can't take their Human Rights away.Excellent! You have clearly explained the 'against' argument and supported it with a key piece of evidence (Article 30). To conclude this essay I personally believe that I partially agree as there is more danger in letting people like that rome free and but I also believe that it so shouldn't be as strict as the actually actual statement. That is why I partially agree with the statement.This is a very sophisticated and nuanced conclusion. It shows you are weighing both sides and forming a complex judgement, which is a very high-level skill.
Your 'for' paragraph is brilliant. To make it even better, just add one specific example to illustrate your point:
Some people agree that people who don't take responsibility for their actions should lose their rights, because their actions could damage others' physical and mental state.This is your original, excellent point. For example, if a person drives drunk, they are acting irresponsibly and endangering the lives of others.This adds a specific, real-world example. Therefore, it is right that they should lose their right to a driving licence, and perhaps even their right to freedom if they cause an accident.This explains the fair 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 as you could be endangering others if you don't fulfil your responsibilities. Also if you don't treat others with respect then you shouldn't recieve respect either.Good, clear points for the 'agree' side. Even though you have the right to work, they could fire you as you aren't fulfilling your responsibilities.This is a great real-world example of a 'right' (to a job) being lost due to irresponsibility. However, some may strongly disagree with this statement because article number 30 states 'No one can take away your human rights'. Which means that you can't lose them.Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. As well as that article 8 says 'Your human rights are protected by the law'.More great use of evidence! Citing multiple articles makes your argument very strong. Finally, my personal opinion is that I disagree with this statement as if they lose their rights, they are losing many things that they need or require. For example, the right to life (article number 3) if the do not have this right someone could take their life.An outstanding conclusion. You give a clear judgement and support it with a final, powerful piece of evidence (Article 3).
Your use of evidence is brilliant. You can make it even better by adding a sentence of your own explanation, like this:
I disagree because Article 8 of the UDHR says 'Your human rights are protected by the law'.This is your original, excellent point with evidence. This is a crucial principle because it means our rights are not just an idea, but a legal guarantee.This new part explains WHY being 'protected by law' is so important. It means that even if a person has done something wrong, there are still rules that must be followed in how they are treated, which prevents cruelty and injustice.This explains the consequence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
To conclude, I personally believe this sentence is partially true but mostly wrong.An excellent, nuanced start to an essay. Structuring it as a conclusion is unusual, but the thinking is high-level. Why I think this is wrong is because you cannot take away someones rights leaving them to an unfair life.A clear, well-reasoned point. I rather believe that if they are doing wrong they should be fired or punished in jail with their rights still part of their identity - They are still humans and can still be taught.This is a brilliant point, distinguishing between punishment and the complete removal of rights. On the other side of my perspective I conclude they should lose few rights such as freedom to go outside and right 19 and 20 (freedom of expression and the right to public assembly) as they are the human rights that allow their freedom but only for a short period of time.This is an outstandingly sophisticated argument, using specific UDHR articles to argue for the temporary loss of SOME rights, but not all.
You need to re-organise your points into separate paragraphs. Here is how your essay could be structured:
Introduction: In my opinion, the statement is partially true, but mostly wrong.
For Paragraph: On one hand, I agree that people should temporarily lose a few specific rights if they are irresponsible. For example, as stated in UDHR Articles 19 and 20, rights like freedom of expression or assembly can be limited if they are used to harm others.
Against Paragraph: However, I believe it is wrong to take away a person's fundamental human identity. Even if someone is punished in jail, they are still human and can be taught. Their basic rights should remain.
Conclusion: In conclusion, while minor rights can be temporarily limited as a punishment, a person's core human rights should never be taken away.
'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 you don't respect other people's rights why should they respect yours?A clear and logical argument for the 'agree' side, based on the principle of reciprocity. But on the other hand, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because all humans should have their rights no matter who they are.Good - a clear counter-argument based on the principle of universal rights. Also, if you don't have your rights then what about article 30?: nobody can take your human rights.Excellent use of specific evidence to support your point. To conclude, I personally believe that they shouldn't be taken away even if you don't do your responsibilites because taking them away goes against the human rights and people worked and fought so hard for human rights so it would be a shame if we lost them.This is a fantastic conclusion, bringing in the historical context of the fight for rights to make a powerful emotional and logical point.
Your conclusion is excellent. You can make it even stronger by being more specific about what you mean:
I believe rights shouldn't be taken away, because people fought so hard for them.This is your original, powerful point. For example, people like the Suffragettes campaigned for years to win the right to vote. These rights were not given easily.This adds a specific historical example. To take these hard-won rights away would be a "shame" because it would be disrespectful to the sacrifices of the past and would return us to a less fair and equal society.This explains the reasoning in more detail.
'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 rights were given to you with a responibility like the right to work your responsibility is to go to work, be there on time and do the work given to you.This is an excellent point for the 'agree' side, with a very clear and well-explained example. However some people might disagree with statement because with night you have a responsability but treating the right as a game may put you in prison.This point is a little unclear. What do you mean by treating a right 'as a game'? But in Article 30, it says no one can take away your rights, this means no matter who you are.Excellent - this is a much clearer point for the 'disagree' side, and it's supported by specific evidence.
Your point about Article 30 is great. You should make that the focus of your 'disagree' paragraph, like this:
However, some people would strongly disagree.This is a clear topic sentence. They would argue that rights are universal and cannot be taken away. This is supported by Article 30 of the UDHR, which says "no one can take away your rights".This uses your excellent evidence. This means that rights belong to you simply because you are human, and they are not a reward for good behaviour that can be removed as a punishment.This explains the reasoning behind the evidence.
'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 statment, 'people should lose their human rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities' for various resons. This is because we are given these rights with the intention to use them correctly.A clear and well-reasoned point for the 'agree' side. For example, if a teacher would dicide to not teach the class, they are not using right 23, "the right to work" sensibly, so it should be taken away.This is an excellent example, using a specific right from the UDHR to make your point. However, some may strongly disagree with this statment because of right number thirty, 'no-one can take away your human rights'.Good - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. To conclude, my person opinion is that, yes, your rights can be taken away. I think this because human rights weren't made that every country applied to them.This is a very interesting but potentially flawed conclusion. While it's true not all countries follow the UDHR, it is still the international standard.
Your conclusion is interesting, but a safer and stronger conclusion would be to weigh up the two articles you already mentioned, like this:
In conclusion, while I understand both sides, I ultimately agree that some rights can be taken away.This makes a clear judgement. Although Article 30 says rights cannot be removed, Article 23 implies that the right to work depends on being responsible. As my example showed, a teacher who refuses to teach should lose their job.This weighs up the two pieces of evidence and explains your choice. This shows that some rights are conditional on us behaving responsibly.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)'
However on the other hands some may wholeheartedly disagree because just because you made a mistake or 'something' not responsible it should never result in your right being taken.A clear point for the 'disagree' side, focusing on mistakes. Also people may agree with statement because of your own actions you should and will be held against.This point is a little unclear. You need to explain what you mean. To conclude I personally believe that if your responsible not responsible for everything you do it should never result in your right being taken.A good conclusion that gives your final opinion.
Your point about mistakes is good. You can improve it by adding an example and more explanation, like this:
I disagree with the statement because making one mistake should not cause you to lose your rights.This is your original point, written more clearly. For example, if a person is late for work, they have made a mistake, but it would be an unfair and disproportionate punishment to take away their human rights because of it.This adds a specific example. Everyone makes small mistakes, and the punishment should fit the action.This explains the reasoning.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Although some people may strongly disagree with this statement because all people have responsibilites and it your responsibilit- is to follow your responsibilites, Futhermore, if you dont follow your responsibilities how you ment to follow your human rights.This is a slightly confused but interesting point, suggesting that being responsible is a necessary skill for properly using rights. However other people might say disagree with this statement because in the U.D.H.R article 30 says no one can take away your human rights.Excellent! A clear counter-argument supported by specific, accurate evidence. Also human rights agree with everyone no matter how they act or look.A good explanation of the principle of universality. However I disagree with this statement because all humans should have human rights and all member of the U.D.H.R has agreed to follow this rule.A strong, evidence-based conclusion that gives a clear final judgement.
Your 'for' argument has a good idea. You could phrase it more clearly like this:
Some people agree with the statement because they believe that being responsible is a necessary part of having rights.This states the point clearly. For example, you have a right to freedom, but you also have a responsibility to not use that freedom to harm others. If you cannot handle that responsibility, it shows you cannot handle the right that goes with it.This provides a clear example and explanation.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
However if a person did an illegal thing like kill somebody they could be sentenced to death or in prison and they will lose their rights to freedom of their own things as they have not fulfilled their responsibilities.This is a strong point for the 'agree' side, using a very powerful and specific example. On the other hand there are simply some rights that can't be taken away like the right to freedom of thought or public assembly and also the right to food and shelter.Excellent - another well-argued paragraph that uses specific examples of inalienable rights. Overall, I disagree with the statement if people should los their rights if they haven't fulfilled their responsibilities because Right Number 30 NOBODY can take away your human rights.A great conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with a key piece of evidence.
Your essay starts a little abruptly. An introduction would help the reader. It could be as simple as this:
The question of whether people should lose their rights for failing their responsibilities is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides.This sentence introduces the debate. Some people agree, arguing that serious failures should have serious consequences.This briefly introduces the 'for' side. However, others believe fundamental rights can never be taken away.This briefly introduces the 'against' side.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Rights are the rights you simply have because you are human and an important right everyone has is 'No one can take your rights'. This is because to treat everyone equally.A very clear and well-supported argument for the 'disagree' side. Someone would strongly agree with this statement because everyone is expecting you to do your part of the job so nothing goes wrong as everyone wants it to be a success. Also it might be seen as disrespectful since you are not trying or putting effort into it.This is an excellent counter-argument, explaining the 'for' side from a workplace/community perspective. On the other prespective, some may strongly disagree with this statement because we are humans not perfection so we can make mistakes and that task may not be capable of you level.Another strong point for the 'disagree' side, focusing on human error and capability. To conclude, I personally believe that you shouldn't lose your rights just because of something you are not capable of as their was a document recorded called the U.D.H.R... It was formed in 1945 and established 1948 which made human right official.An outstanding conclusion. Not only do you give a clear judgement, but you support it with specific, correct historical knowledge about the UDHR.
Your point about 'disrespect' is very good. You could make it even more powerful by using a non-workplace example:
Some people agree because failing a responsibility can be seen as disrespectful to others.This is your original point. For example, all citizens have a responsibility to follow the law to keep society safe. If a person decides to ignore this and commits a crime, they are disrespecting the safety and rights of everyone else.This provides a more serious, societal example. Therefore, it is fair that they face a consequence for this disrespect.This explains the logic.
'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 if you don't fufill the task that belongs to the rights you should not be rewarded.A clear point for the 'agree' side, seeing rights as a 'reward'. In addition, if you are not doing your responsibilities there is no purpose having the rights. for example, if you go to work, your duties are to complete your tasks and be on time, if you don't obey you could get fired.This is a great, real-world example to support your point. Despite having a strong argument the fact that some people believe you should lose your rights if you don't fufil their responsibilities some people strongly disagree. This is due to them believing that we are all united and shouldn't have our rights taken away as a punishment.Good - a clear counter-argument based on the idea of unity. Furthermore, article 30 explains how no one can take away your rights.Excellent use of specific evidence. To conclude I personally believe that we should not have our rights taken away, however there will be consequences for not fufilling responsibilities.This is a very sophisticated and well-reasoned conclusion that shows nuanced thinking.
Your conclusion is fantastic. You can make it even better by using an example to explain what you mean by 'consequences':
In conclusion, I believe we should not have our rights taken away, however there must still be consequences for irresponsibility.This is your original, excellent point. For example, if a person commits a crime, they should face the consequence of going to prison and losing their freedom. However, they should not lose their fundamental human right to be treated with dignity and not be tortured.This specific example clearly explains the difference you are talking about. This shows we can have punishments without being inhumane.This provides a powerful final thought.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree with the statement Since your right link to your right. In the UDHR for artical 29 is 'responsibility' which show if you can't do your responsibility you are not using that right correctly.This is a good attempt to use specific evidence, but be careful - Article 29 is about duties, but it doesn't say you lose rights if you don't fulfil them. However the same may dissagree because in artical 30 is "nobody can take away your rights" which means that your right can't be taken from you.Excellent - this is a much clearer and more accurate use of evidence from the UDHR. To conclude my personally opinion is that nobody can take away your right so I disagree with the question for the folowing resons: Artical 30 nobody can take away your right.A clear conclusion that is well-supported by your strongest piece of evidence.
Instead of relying on a misread article, you can make a logical point for the 'agree' side like this:
Some people agree with the statement because they believe rights and responsibilities are connected.This is a clear topic sentence. They would argue that you only deserve to have your rights protected if you fulfil your responsibility to protect the rights of others.This explains the reasoning. For example, if you physically assault someone, you have not respected their right to safety, so it is fair that you should lose your own right to freedom by being sent to prison.This adds a powerful, specific example.
'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 as for example people may take advantage of their rights and do not do their responsibilities.A clear point for the 'agree' side. Another reason is that some people may use their rights for a bad reason for example people could use their rights to lie or to hart others.This is an excellent point, supported by good examples. However to balance things out some people may strongly disagree as in the Article 30 of human rights it says, no one can take away your human rights.Excellent! A clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. Also some people may have personal problems in their life and some may have disabilities.This is a very insightful and empathetic point, showing you are thinking about the reasons behind people's actions. To conclude, I personally believe that no one should lose their human rights. This is because as I said earlier in this essay in Article 30 of human rights no one can take away your rights.A good conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with your strongest piece of evidence.
Your point about disabilities is excellent. You can make it even stronger by explaining the implications, like this:
I disagree because some people may have disabilities that prevent them from fulfilling all their responsibilities.This is your original, excellent point. For example, a person with a physical disability may not be able to work a manual job. It would be incredibly discriminatory and unfair to take away their rights because of something they cannot control.This provides a specific example and explains why it would be wrong. This shows that rights must be universal, to protect the most vulnerable people in society.This explains the wider importance of the point.
'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 people can misuse the rights that they have and can take advantage with their rights.A clear point for the 'agree' side. My evidence is with "we can't have rights without responsibilities" that statement shows that we need to use our rights in good ways.This is a good piece of reasoning to support your point. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because In article 30 it states, that "nobody can take away human rights".Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. This shows that everybody has many chances to change themselves and people could also use their rights in good ways to help others and themselves.A good explanation of the philosophy behind the UDHR article. To conclude, I personally believe that people should not lose their rights, if they they do not fulfil their responsibilities. I also think that if it was a one time mistake rights shouldn't be take away. Therefore if it is a continuous mistake rights should still not be taken away rather they would not be allowed to go or do the certain thing again.This is an outstandingly nuanced conclusion, distinguishing between one-time and continuous mistakes and suggesting alternative punishments.
You could bring your sophisticated thinking from the conclusion into your main paragraphs. For example:
However, I disagree that rights should be taken away for a 'one-time mistake'.This uses your own excellent vocabulary. For example, if a person forgets to pay a bill once, it would be a disproportionate punishment to take away their fundamental human rights. They should be given a chance to fix their mistake.This provides a clear example. As Article 30 states, human rights should not be taken away, and this is especially true for minor errors.This links your idea to your strong evidence.
'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 if they don't have rights, they would suger or die when everyone is given the things they need.A very powerful opening argument, focusing on the life-or-death importance of rights. Furthermore a human right says "No one can take away your human rights". This can link to when children in England a few centuries ago had no rights.Excellent! Using both a specific rule and a historical example makes your argument very strong. However some people may agree with this statement because if they disobey their important responsibilities, like not treating other humans with respect, then they might consider taking away their rights to show them how those people felt.This is a very sophisticated 'for' argument, based on the idea of justice as empathy ("an eye for an eye"). In conclusion you shouldn't get your rights taken away because it wouldn't be fair for them to be below everyone else just due to the fact they don't fufill their responsibilities.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement.
Your main paragraphs are excellent. Your conclusion should reflect that quality. Here's an example:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This is your clear judgement. Although the argument for taking a right to 'show someone how it feels' is tempting, it is a form of revenge, not justice.This shows you are weighing both sides. As history has shown with children's rights, a society is only fair when everyone has basic protections. Taking rights away would risk a return to that cruel and unequal past, and as the UDHR says, our rights cannot be taken away.This summarises your strongest arguments and evidence.
'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 is useless and keeps those better suited for a task doing it and others not.This is a slightly confusing but interesting point about efficiency and suitability for a role. For example the right to a job. Some people who don't attend to their job will get warnings, fired and may be considered unable to do their job correctly resulting in them not being able to work.This is a great, clear, real-world example to support your point. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because of the articles stated 30 in the UDHR. It states "No one can take away your human rights".Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. For example, someone misbehaves in school. They can get expelled but also have a bad report on their permanent record. This can result in multiple schools not accepting them and they will lose the right to education.This is an outstandingly well-developed example, showing you are thinking about the long-term, knock-on effects of a punishment. To conclude I belive that this is wrong. A mistake or non finished responsibility should not be met with a lost right.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement and a strong, memorable summary statement.
Your point about school expulsion is brilliant. You can make it even stronger by explicitly linking it to Article 30:
I disagree, as taking away one right can lead to the loss of others.This is a strong topic sentence. For example, if a student is expelled for misbehaviour, this bad record might stop other schools from accepting them. This means that a punishment for breaking school rules has resulted in them losing their fundamental right to an education.This explains your excellent example. This is why Article 30 is so important; it exists to prevent such a chain reaction where one mistake leads to a person losing all their chances in life.This links the example directly to your evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongly believe that people should lose their rights if they do not fulfill the responsibilities that come with them because by not fulfilling these responsibilities, you are endangering other people's rights.This is an outstanding 'for' argument, based on the sophisticated idea that our responsibilities are directly linked to protecting the rights of others. For example, Article 5 of the UDHR (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) says: "Nobody has the right to torture us". The responsibility that comes with this right is that you do not hurt or torture others. However, if you do not fulfill this responsibility, you are violating other people's rights.This is a brilliant and perfectly executed P.E.E.L paragraph, using a specific article and explaining it with perfect logic. On the other side of the spectrum, many people may strongly argue against this statement since all humans have human rights, it would be degrading and dehumanizing to take away someone's human rights.Good - a clear counter-argument with strong vocabulary. In conclusion, I believe that people should lose their rights if they do not pulfil their responsibilities because they are endangering the rights of others and in addition, are not contributing to the communities they are a part of.A clear conclusion that gives a final judgement.
Your 'disagree' paragraph just needs an example. You mention Article 30 on the next page, so you could have written this:
On the other hand, many disagree because taking away rights would be degrading and dehumanizing.This is your original, excellent point. This view is supported by Article 30 of the UDHR, which states that "No one can take away your Human Rights."This adds the specific evidence. This means that rights are fundamental to our human identity, and to remove them would be to treat someone as less than human, which is a cruel and dangerous act.This explains what the evidence means.
'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 if they don't fufill their responsibilities it could lead to any sort of chaos.A good point for the 'agree' side, focusing on social order. Another key reason to support this statement is Article 29. Responsibilities, we have a duty to other people, and we should protect rights and freedoms. So breaking this right would possibly lead to jailtime.Excellent! Using a specific UDHR article to support the 'for' side is a clever and high-level approach. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because if someone is unable to fufill this responsibility like having a disability then losing their rights wouldn't be following article 30.This is another outstanding point, using Article 30 to support the empathetic argument about disability. This shows excellent critical thinking. (No conclusion written) Your essay stops here. To get the top marks, you must always include a conclusion that gives your final judgement.
You have all the ingredients for a top-level conclusion. It could look like this:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This gives a clear final judgement. While Article 29 shows we have a duty to others, your argument about people with disabilities is more powerful. It would be deeply unfair to punish someone for failing a responsibility they are unable to fulfil.This weighs up your two main points and explains your choice. Therefore, as Article 30 states, human rights must be protected for everyone to ensure the most vulnerable are kept safe.This uses your evidence to make a final, powerful point.
'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 is useless and keeps those better suited for a task doing it and others not. For example the right to a job. Some people who don't attend to their job will get warnings, fired and may be considered unable to do their job correctly.This is an excellent 'for' paragraph, supported by a clear, well-explained, real-world example. However some may strongly disagree with this statement because of the articles stated 30 in the UDHR. It states "No one can take away your human rights".Good - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. For example, someone misbehaves in school. They can get expelled but also have a bad report... This can result in multiple schools not accepting them and they will lose the right to education.This is an outstanding example, showing you are thinking about the long-term, knock-on effects of a punishment. To conclude I belive that this is wrong. A mistake or non finished responsibility should not be met with a lost right.A good, clear conclusion that gives your final judgement.
Your point about school expulsion is brilliant. You can make it even stronger by explicitly linking it to Article 30:
I disagree, as taking away one right can lead to the loss of others.This is a strong topic sentence. For example, if a student is expelled for misbehaviour, this bad record might stop other schools from accepting them. This means that a punishment for breaking school rules has resulted in them losing their fundamental right to an education.This explains your excellent example. This is why Article 30 is so important; it exists to prevent such a chain reaction where one mistake leads to a person losing all their chances in life.This links the example directly to your evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree because the person who did something didn't repect their right should be punished. As you are expected to respect everything and you might have misund your rights.A clear point for the 'agree' side, focusing on punishment and respect. But, on the other side of the argument, everybody should have rights no matter what they did. In article 30 of the U.D.H.R it informs that "no one can take away your human right."Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific, accurate evidence. Therefore, in my opinion... I think, people should not lose their rights, if they don't fulfill them.A clear, if slightly repetitive, conclusion that gives your final judgement.
Your point about Article 30 is great. You could develop it by explaining *why* it's so important:
I disagree because, as Article 30 of the UDHR says, "no one can take away your human rights."This is your original, excellent point. This is a vital rule because it ensures all people are treated with a basic level of dignity, no matter what they have done.This explains the reasoning behind the rule. Without this rule, governments could abuse their power and punish people in cruel and inhumane ways. Therefore, Article 30 protects everyone.This explains the dangerous consequences if the rule didn't exist.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people can lose their human rights fully. How can someone lose all their rights? Someone can lose their human rights by doing something horrible. Like Ed Gein, he killed people and then cut their face off and then wore it. And even Jack the Ripper and more.This is a very powerful and graphic set of examples to support the 'for' argument. Can you get your rights back? Yeah you can. But not all the time. If you did something worse than this you could have a death sentance.You are now looking at the other side, considering whether rights can be regained. So, if you did something not that bad you keep your right. If horrible, ill see you dead.This is a very blunt and memorable conclusion that clearly argues for a system of proportionality.
Your examples are very powerful. To create a balanced essay, you also need to explain the opposing view fairly, like this:
However, some people would strongly disagree, arguing that even the most horrible criminals are still human beings.This introduces the counter-argument. From this perspective, even someone like Ed Gein should keep their most fundamental human rights, such as the right not to be tortured. They would argue that if we start torturing our worst prisoners, we become as cruel as they are.This explains the reasoning behind the opposing view. Therefore, to remain a civilised society, we must treat everyone, even murderers, with a basic level of human dignity.This provides a strong concluding thought for the paragraph.
'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 why would you want something but not want to do the responsibility that come with it. For example if you want a dog you would need to wash it, buy food for it...This is a fantastic, clear, and relatable example to explain the link between rights (owning a pet) and responsibilities. On the other hand, some may disagree with this statement because in the universal declaration of human Rights its written "no one can take away your human Rights (article 30)".Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific and accurate evidence. To conclude I personally believe that a person shouldn't loose their rights because if they are not doing the responsibility that comes with it because if we take away their right then we are breaking an article in the UDHR and that's not good.A good conclusion that gives a clear judgement and supports it with your strongest piece of evidence.
Your point about Article 30 is great. You can make it even stronger by explaining *why* it's such an important rule:
On the other hand, many disagree, and this is supported by Article 30 of the UDHR which says "no one can take away your human Rights".This is your original, excellent point. This is a vital principle because it acts as a protection against the abuse of power.This new sentence explains the purpose of the article. If rights could be taken away, a government could decide that anyone who disagrees with them is 'irresponsible' and use that as an excuse to imprison them. Article 30 prevents this, ensuring a basic level of safety for everyone.This gives a specific example of the 'abuse of power' it prevents.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may strongely agree with this statment because people can misuse there rights on purpose so they can get ovided doing dialy daily objectives this shows that they can start to use more and more rights and misuse them on purposes.This is a good point for the 'agree' side, focusing on the deliberate misuse of rights. However, some people may strongly disagree with this statment because in article thirhty (30) it says that no one can take away your rights... this means that even if you mis use on purpose to do bad things.Excellent - a clear counter-argument, supported by specific evidence and directly challenging the 'for' argument. To conclude I personally belive I agree with this statment this is because if no one did there responbiliys there would be no point to do things which create the whole human popluation to be lazy which would bad for ecosystem.This conclusion is a little confusing and seems to contradict your strong 'disagree' point.
Your conclusion should be a summary of your strongest argument. Based on your paragraphs, a better conclusion would be:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement.This is a clear judgement that matches your best point. Although it is true that some people misuse their rights, the principle stated in Article 30 of the UDHR is more important.This shows you have weighed both sides. It clearly says that rights cannot be taken away, even if someone misuses them on purpose. This universal rule is necessary to protect everyone from unfair punishment.This explains your final reasoning using your best evidence.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Although some people may strongly disagree with this statement because all people have responsibilites and it your responsibility is to follow your responsibilites, Futhermore, if you dont follow your responsibilities how you ment to follow your human rights.This is a slightly confused but interesting point, suggesting that being responsible is a necessary skill for properly using rights. In article However other people might say disagre with this statement because in the U.D.H.R article 30 says No one can take away your human rights.Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific, accurate evidence. However I disagree with this statement because all humans should have human rights and all member of the U.D.H.R has agreed to follow this rule.A strong, evidence-based conclusion that gives a clear final judgement.
Your 'for' argument has a good idea. You could phrase it more clearly like this:
Some people agree with the statement because they believe that being responsible is a necessary part of having rights.This states the point clearly. For example, you have a right to freedom, but you also have a responsibility to not use that freedom to harm others. If you cannot handle that responsibility, it shows you cannot handle the right that goes with it.This provides a clear example and explanation.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people should lose their rights... People should agree with the statement if they don't follow the laws/rules since they are being impadent and they don't get punish... if they are being disrespectful to others or if people are being rude to others.A clear point for the 'agree' side, with good examples of irresponsibility. On the other side of this disagreement some things peoples rights shouldn't be taken away if they don't do the right thing as it states in Article 30 "No One can Take Away Your Human Rights".Excellent - a clear counter-argument supported by specific evidence. To balance this conflict I personally disagree as even if someone does something wrong it would be unfair to take someones rights away... They should be able to learn from their mistakes and became a better person.A very good and well-reasoned conclusion, focusing on the important principle of rehabilitation.
Your point about rehabilitation is fantastic. You can make it even stronger by explaining *why* it's important:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because everyone should be able to learn from their mistakes and become a better person.This is your original, excellent point. If we take away people's rights forever, we are giving up on them and saying they can never change.This explains the alternative. However, allowing people the chance to be rehabilitated is better for society, as it means they can one day return as responsible citizens rather than remaining a permanent problem.This explains the benefit to everyone, making the argument very powerful.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some may agree with this due to their personal perspective. If one gets fired for not fulfilling their responsibilities, others may think that their rights are should be taken away.A good point for the 'agree' side, with a clear real-world example. On the other hand, others may disagree with this statement. As to this is because, the person might be extremely busy and won't have enough time to do their responsibilities needed.This is a very good and empathetic counter-argument. In addition, in the UDHR, article 30 states that no one can take away your human rights. This shows great evidence on why people could strongly disagree.Excellent use of specific evidence to support your point. To conclude, I disagree because of what Article 30 states. It shows that this statement is wrong, in my view, and should not be true.A clear conclusion that gives your final judgement based on your strongest piece of evidence.
You have a great combination of points in your 'disagree' paragraph. You can link them together to make your argument even more powerful:
I disagree because people can sometimes fail their responsibilities for reasons they can't control, for example being too busy with work or family.This combines your two points into one sentence. It would be incredibly unfair to punish these people by taking away their rights. This is why Article 30 of the UDHR is so important.This explains the link between the problem and the evidence. It states that "no one can take away your human rights," providing a crucial protection for ordinary people against unfair punishment.This explains what the evidence does, making the argument complete.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people might agree with this statement because if you work to care for your family and your sick so you dont work, your rights should get taken away.This is a very confused point. You are describing a situation where someone is being responsible (caring for family), but then saying their rights should be taken away. A reason why someone would disagre is that. If you go to school constantly but you listen and try your best in class you sholdn't get purished.This is a better point, arguing that effort and good intentions should be considered. To conclud, I personally disagre. Because if someone is a very nice person, they will do anything to help someone.A clear conclusion, but the reasoning is not strongly linked to the question about rights and responsibilities.
Let's take your idea about being a "nice person" and turn it into a clearer paragraph:
I disagree with the statement because a person's rights should not depend on a single action.This is a clear topic sentence. For example, a person might be very nice and helpful to their community their whole life. If they then make one mistake, like getting into a fight, should they lose all their rights?This uses your idea in a clearer way. It would be unfair to judge a person's entire worth on one bad day. Therefore, their rights as a human should remain, even if they face a punishment for their mistake.This explains the reasoning clearly.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
On one side of this conflict, many people say that for someone else to respect your righ you have to take on the responsibility that comes with it. If you going to school and are late every day or they are disrespertfull towards teachers or peers the school would could give you a supension.This is an excellent 'for' argument, perfectly explained with a clear, relatable, and well-developed example. Contridicting previous statements, Everyone is Human and Humans make mistakes, so why should others be able to take our rights for a few mistakes.A clear and well-reasoned counter-argument based on the idea of human fallibility. (No conclusion written)Your answer stops here. To get top marks, you must always add a concluding paragraph that summarises your final judgement.
You have two excellent main paragraphs. All you needed was a conclusion to weigh them up, like this:
In conclusion, I disagree that people should lose their fundamental rights.This gives a clear final judgement. While I agree that there must be consequences for failing responsibilities, such as a school suspension, these should be limited and proportional.This shows you have weighed both sides. Taking away a person's universal human rights for making a mistake would be an unfair and excessive punishment, as everyone is human and makes mistakes.This summarises your strongest argument.