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.
This set of responses demonstrated a strong moral understanding of the differences between dictatorship and democracy. The majority of the class correctly identified the key features of a dictatorship (rule by one, force, inheritance) and argued strongly against it.
A dictatorship is a political system where one person or a small group holds absolute power, often acquired by force or inheritance. While some may argue it offers stability, I strongly disagree with the statement that it is the "best" way to run a country, as the lack of human rights outweighs any potential efficiency. Excellent introduction. It defines the key term ("dictatorship") and clearly states the writer's point of view (Judgement). On one hand, some might agree with the statement because dictatorships can be very efficient. In a democracy, passing laws can take a long time due to debates and voting. In contrast, a dictator can make instant decisions to solve problems like crime or economic crisis. This is a strong argument FOR the statement. It explains the concept of "efficiency" and contrasts it with democratic delays. For example, in some historical dictatorships, crime rates were reported to be very low because the punishments were so severe that people were terrified to break the law. Specific evidence is used here to support the point about order and control. However, I disagree that this makes it the "best" system because this order comes at the cost of freedom. In countries like North Korea, citizens cannot travel, speak freely, or vote. A strong counter-argument (AGAINST). It uses a specific example (North Korea) to show the negative consequences. If a leader makes a bad decision, the citizens have no way to remove them. This often leads to corruption and suffering, as the leader cares more about their own power than the people's wellbeing. This explains the *consequence* of the point. It explains WHY dictatorship is flawed (lack of accountability). In conclusion, while a dictatorship might provide order, it is fundamentally the wrong way to run a country because it strips people of their human rights. A democracy, where people have a voice, is much safer and fairer, even if it is sometimes slower. A clear, justified conclusion. It weighs the "order" against "human rights" and makes a final decision.
A dictatorship is a polical system with one leader with absolute power, no political parties or freedom. A minority of may aggre with the statement 'A Dictatorship is the best way to run a country' as it can heep the country in order. Living in a dictatorship is also agreeable as they'll be no problems e.g crime since everything is under controll. You have identified a valid argument for dictatorship: maintaining order and reducing crime. Good start. A majority on the other hand may dissagree, as a dictatorship is not a pleasant place to live. people fear living where they are controlled. people rather live in society where it's fair and they have a say in things. You clearly explain the counter-argument regarding fear and control. E.g north Korea is a dictatorship and its controlled and not a nice place however Russia is a democracy/polital system where leaders are elected so it's more safey safer. You used examples (North Korea), which is excellent. Be careful with your second example—Russia is often debated, but the contrast you are trying to make between dictatorship and elected systems is clear. In conclusion I personally think I will disagree with the statement because I rather live in a society where im not too controlled instead of fully controlled. A clear opinion is reached at the end.
Some people might argue that a dictatorship is the best way to run a country because it is very efficient at keeping order. I have started with your point about "order". Because the leader has absolute power, they can make strict laws instantly to stop crime without waiting for a vote. This means that, theoretically, the streets might be safer because criminals are too scared of the harsh punishments to break the law. I have added this 'Explanation'. I explained HOW the order is kept (strict laws/no voting) and the CONSEQUENCE (criminals are scared).
I Completely disagree due to the fact that a dictatorship is a very unfair way to rule a country; as it is Someone who tells other people what to do. Clear opening statement stating your point of view. A way a dictatorship Country's ruler Comes through power is usually by force or Inheritance and they often take away peoples freedom. This is not a good and fair way to rule a country. Some places like North Korea is also a dictatorship. Good recognition of how dictators get power (force/inheritance) and a relevant example (North Korea). However Countries like germany and usa are the complete opposite which is called a democracy. You have identified the opposite system correctly. To get higher marks, you need to explain WHY democracy is better, not just name it.
I completely disagree with the statement because dictatorships rely on fear rather than fairness. I kept your main opinion. For example, in North Korea, power is inherited or taken by force, meaning the people have no voice. This is not the best way to run a country because if the leader is cruel or incompetent, the citizens cannot vote them out, leading to long-term suffering and a lack of human rights. I developed your point. I explained the CONSEQUENCE of inheritance/force: the inability to remove a bad leader.
I Strongly disagree because dictatorship is when Someone pushes there way in and is not always thinking about the country they are runing so not thinking about the people most people think that they should not be making dicistion about lots of people You have a strong opinion here, but the sentence is quite long. Try to use full stops to break up your ideas. make the right chases so there is a action to make sure that the people like what they are willing to change or keep the same if there is no voting people will be upset and might not even like what the dictater is doing such as north Korea they are lifeing in a dictatorship and is not aloude to make there own disisions like traveling where they are no allowed to travel and has been in north Korea for all there life would you not like to travel and have to deal with unfair rule this is why I think that dictatorship should Be not a alowed. made so there is no fighting and unfairness. You have lots of good ideas here—especially about travel restrictions in North Korea—but they are all rushing out at once!
I strongly disagree because dictators often do not act in the best interests of the people. Clear topic sentence. Because there is no voting, the leader does not have to listen to what the public wants. A clear example of this is North Korea, where citizens are not even allowed to make simple decisions like travelling abroad. This proves it is not the best way to run a country, as it treats citizens like prisoners rather than people. I took your point about "not thinking about people" and "traveling" and structured it with Evidence and Explanation.
Some people may Strongly agree with this Statement because they think that harsh discipline is the only way to control people. Good opening acknowledging the other side of the argument. A dictater ship is when a person or a group of people become leaders by force or through inheritance. People may have been led to believe that if you don't fear your authorities then you won't listen and/or respect them. A person who comes into leadership by force may have never gotten the chance to before. On the other hand, Some people may Strongly disagree with this Statement because it's unfair to the people who don't have a say on who will be in change of their own Country. Clear transition to the disagreement. People who Strongly disagree with this Statement are more likely to Support the idea of democracy. Democracy is a system where citizens get to choose who they want to rule their Country. To Conclude, I personally believe that dictator-ship is not the best way to rule a country. It limits the freedom of innocent people, takes away their right to vote and speak freely, and is unfair to other candidates who wanted to also become a leader. Excellent conclusion summarizing three distinct reasons (freedom, voting, fairness to candidates).
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they believe strict discipline creates a stable society. I kept your point about discipline. In a dictatorship, the fear of authority means that people are less likely to break the law or cause social unrest. For example, some might argue that without this fear, society would be chaotic. Therefore, they see dictatorship as the most effective way to ensure safety, even if it isn't the fairest. I expanded on *why* discipline matters—connecting it to "safety" and "chaos". This explains the logic of the argument more fully.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they might think their a good leader. Dictatorship leaders might make people think oh he is powerful as he funded the country with force to be the the president, and how it would make it easy ever easy for the next person to be it as his son could inherit it then it would be simple who the next leader will be. This is a unique and clever point—that inheritance makes succession "simple." Well done for thinking outside the box. However Some people may strongly disagree with this statement Because they might not agree with the methods the dictors using and they might want to change the prime minister. Another example the president dies and the son is very young that inherets it all, He will not have any experiance to lead the country. What if he has no sons or daughters what is the country going to do now the country would go to war to see who will run it. You have effectively challenged your own previous point. You argued inheritance is simple, then here you argue it is dangerous if the heir is young. This shows good evaluation skills.
However, I strongly disagree that inheritance is a good way to choose a leader. Clear topic sentence. While it might seem simple, there is a major risk that the inheritor is too young or inexperienced. As you noted, if a young son inherits absolute power without the skills to use it, the country could collapse. Unlike a democracy, where leaders are chosen for their ability, a dictatorship relies on luck, which is a dangerous way to run a country. I refined your point about the "young son" into a formal argument comparing "luck" vs "ability".
I completly disagree with this idea because a dictatorship is run by horrible people that came out as leader with force, power or inheritage. Strong opening statement. A country shall not be ruled by dictators but instead a democracy because in a democracy people are voted by the public to rule and speak the views of the people from that country. If a country is led by a dictator that is the one country that doesnt allow freedom and usually starts war with others. Examples of dictatorship are : North Korea, Nazis and many others but most countries are led by good leaders actually listening to the people views. Excellent use of examples (Nazis, North Korea) and identifying "war" as a consequence. The best way to run a country is by democracy because in a dictatorship everyone doesnt get the freedom that people get when they are in a democracy. Examples of democracies are USA, England, Spain, France, Switzerland and Denmark but way more countries are in a democracy. But the thing that these countries have in common is that they live freely and don't have to worry except in a dictatorship they have to worry about war and if they are safe where they are or where ever they go. You focus heavily on safety and freedom, which is the strongest argument for democracy.
A major reason why dictatorship is not the best way to run a country is the tendency towards conflict and war. I have made the point about "war" the main topic of this paragraph. As you mentioned with the example of the Nazis, dictators often use military force to maintain power or attack others. Because they do not have to listen to the public's desire for peace, they can drag their countries into dangerous wars. In contrast, democratic leaders are accountable to the people, making the country safer for everyone. I expanded your point. I explained WHY they start wars (no one can stop them) and contrasted it with democracy.
I don't agree with this idea at all. dictatorship is when a leader comes into power with force / without people voting for them. Good definition to start. I think dictatorship is a bad way to rule a country beacause it's not what the people want and they will not make rules without anyone agreeing. Why this is a bad way to rule a country is also beacause if a dictator continues to control with force arguments and chaos could happen making the country not a peaceful place. You link dictatorship to "chaos" and "arguments"—this is a good point about instability. In some circumstances dictatorship can be a good way to run the country beacause the leader could have good ideas and could possibly listen to what people want. You have attempted to look at the other side ("could have good ideas"), which is good for balance. In conclusion, I personally believe dictatorship isn't the best way to rule a country beacause there will always be someone who could be wrong and misunderstanding for what the people want for their Contry. Valid conclusion.
I believe dictatorship is a dangerous way to rule because relying on force creates instability. I am focusing on your point about "chaos". As you suggested, when a leader rules only by force and ignores what the people want, it eventually leads to anger and rebellion. Instead of being a "peaceful place," the country often falls into chaos because the citizens have no legal way to change the leader, so they may turn to violence instead. I explained the link between "force" and "chaos" more clearly.
Dictatorship is the key word in this question, this means that a ruler comes to power through Inheritance or by force. Some people may strongly agree with this question/statement because they may want things to be sped up and not too long so a dictatorship may be the key for a quick and easy way to rule a country. Excellent point regarding speed/efficiency ("things to be sped up"). This is a classic argument for dictatorship. Another reason may be because the could have a preference in how people rule and those are dictatorship and democracy and some may prefer dictatorship more than democracy. On the other hand, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because most people want to have their freedom and human rights to do what they please to do. Another reason may be that they want to choose a leader for them that would be reasonable and will understand what the citizens want for their good and wellbeing. Good use of key terms: "Freedom," "Human Rights," "Wellbeing." I personally believe that I would disagree with this statement because, in dictatorship your human rights are gone and your freedom is taken away and the ruler rules however they want, whereas in a democracy you get to vote for who you want to rule your country and what you want them to do. Clear, comparative conclusion.
Some people may agree with dictatorship because it offers an efficient government where decisions are made quickly. I am upgrading your "sped up" point. In a democracy, passing a law can take months of debate. In a dictatorship, the leader can act instantly. For someone living in a country with high crime or economic crisis, this speed might be seen as a major advantage, as problems are fixed without delay. I added a concrete comparison to democracy to show exactly why "speed" is an advantage.
Some people may agree with this point as a dictator is someone who inherits or rules power and they usually are very powerful people. and also a dictater is one person that rules over that country with might and you could say they make good choices for that country and there is no arguing who is going to be in power because it transfer from power to power. A dictator makes his or her own choices and there is no one to stop them. They are highest in control in that country. You explain the "strength" of the leader well ("rules with might", "no arguing"). However some people may disagree with this statement as dicatorship can also lead to huge devustion and maybe having only one person in charge isn't a good idea as democracy can be seen as a fairer and more just way of ruling and anyone can become an mp so more people can help out and it doesn't have to be inherited. Also in history and to this day dicators don't have the best reputation as all that power can corrupt them. "Huge devastation" and "power can corrupt" are excellent, high-level phrases. In Democracy people can vote, select, become an mp and if an mp has done something bad or controversial they don't have to chose them again next year. To conclude I strongly believe that dictatorship is not the best way to run a country as you only one person with to much power and you can't remove them from it while in democracy you get to vote who you want and revoke a different party/person next year. It is a just way to do things so no one will ever get disheartned with the chosen candidate and can always pick a new one. A very strong, articulate conclusion.
However, I strongly disagree with the statement because, as Lord Acton said, "power tends to corrupt." I am adding a famous quote to support your point about corruption. As you noted, having one person with "too much power" often leads to devastation. In history, leaders like Hitler or Stalin had no one to stop them, and this led to the suffering of millions. This proves that a dictatorship is dangerous because there is no system to remove a leader who has become corrupt. I added specific historical examples to back up your correct theory about corruption.
Some people may strongly agree with this statement because they believe if a country has a certain amount of control it will brainwash the people who live in that country like North Korea Kim Jon un brainwashes his people into worshiping him like a god and once your born there you can't leave. You are right that dictators do this, but usually, this is an argument AGAINST them (because it's bad). To argue FOR them, you would need to say the brainwashing creates "loyalty" or "unity." However some people may strongly disagree with this statement because they think that it's someone's human right to leave the country they were born into but everyone has a right to freedom. Valid point about freedom of movement. To conclude, I personally disagree with this statement because when your born somewhere doesn't mean your going to stay there for life and your opinions change as you grow up so you might want to travel elsewhere. Secondly, a dictator means that some who comes to power by force or inheritance so a ruler of a country could never know when they are going to line of sucsession. You focus heavily on the right to leave/travel. This is a specific freedom, which is good, but try to look at the bigger picture too.
Some people might agree that a dictatorship is effective because it creates total unity in the country. I've rephrased your "brainwashing" point to sound like a political argument. In countries like North Korea, the state uses propaganda (what you called brainwashing) to ensure everyone worships the leader. While this is morally wrong, some might argue it prevents arguments and civil war because everyone follows the same path. I explained WHY the control is used (to prevent division), even though I admit it is wrong.
Some people may strongly agree, because they think voting is too long of a journy and they think it takes too long. so they might not mind who 't i's and dont really care. You have identified "apathy" (not caring) or the speed of the process as a reason. This is a valid point—democracy is slow. However some people may strongly disagree with this because they would rather their voice to be heard and choose the best presented person rather than to get ignored and have someone they didn't want to become run their own country. Good explanation of the desire for representation ("voice to be heard"). To conclude I personally believe that their should be a choice on if you would like to vote for someone to run your country or if you would want them to come in by force because most of the people that vote don't really care who it is they just care if their speech is good and they are well presented. but I personally believe that You should have your own choice to vote and I would choose Democracy if it came down to dictatorship or democracy. Your conclusion gets a bit complicated. You seem to say people vote based on speeches, but ultimately you choose democracy.
Some people might agree with dictatorship because they feel democracy is too slow and inefficient. I am refining your point about voting taking too long. Elections and campaigns take months, and sometimes people just want a leader who acts immediately. A dictator does not need to campaign or wait for votes, so they can govern without these delays. For people who "don't really care" about politics, this simplicity might be preferred. I explained the benefit (simplicity/speed) clearly.
I disagree with this stament because a Dictorship is when a ruler enters power with force and no votes from the local citizens making this seriosly unfair due to the fact many people may not agree with the way he or her conducts and handle the country causing corruption with citizens, many protests that could cause disruption to the peace ey the country. Good chain of reasoning: Force -> Unfairness -> Protests -> Disruption of peace. Instead ey a dictator ship leader a democracy leader would be way suiner due to the fact it has been elected/voted surely by citizens. It mostly has ex your reason why him or she has been ruled Maybe due to the fact what they promised to do for the country. Some people might strongly agree with this statement because they might not really care whether its a fair ruler or unfair ruler and might even agree more because they think they know or like the ruler You suggest personal preference or apathy as a reason to agree.
I disagree with the statement because dictatorships often lead to instability rather than peace. I am focusing on your point about "protests" and "disruption". Because the leader enters by force and the citizens have no say, the people often feel ignored. This leads to "corruption" and "protests," as you mentioned, which disrupts the country. A government that fights its own people cannot be the best way to run a country. I cleaned up the grammar but kept your core argument about the conflict between ruler and citizens.
Out of 10... I think I would give a 9 to agree because it's fair, people have a chance to think for their vote and the country's leader. However, some people might disagree because they would want a leader that was outvoted but deep down they think it's unfair. There is a major misunderstanding here. You are describing a Dictatorship as if it involves "voting" and being "fair." A dictatorship is the opposite—it is when one person rules with NO voting. Most people strongly agree with this as they feel it's the fairest way and the safest way to decide a leader to rule. Overall, I conclude that I do agree with this and I think it is very fair... Your conclusion supports the statement, but your reasons describe a Democracy.
I think there has been a mix-up in terms. If we are talking about voting, that is a Democracy. Clarification of terms. I personally believe a Democracy is the best way to run a country because, as you said, it is "fair" and people "have a chance to think for their vote." A dictatorship is the opposite—it takes these rights away. Therefore, I actually disagree with the statement because I value the fairness of voting. I rewrote your conclusion to match the definition of the words. You like fairness, so you support Democracy, not Dictatorship.
I Disagree with This statement Because it's The Wrong way to Rule a Country my reason is that citizens in that Country would be living in Constant fear and on rigth to freedom. Clear opening: Disagree because of "fear" and lack of "freedom". living in a dictatorship Country causes so many Thing like: no voting, fear to Speak and fight fith, and freedom which will make people want to kill themselves or try to escape e.t.c. But however Some people would Agree to This Because They Think living in a dictatorship county for some reason it would be very have agree living in a dictatorship cantry is a good thing, I would say 5% out of 100% people would want Live in dicatorship Country. You acknowledge some might agree, but you don't really explain *why* (you just say "for some reason"). To get marks, you need to give that reason (e.g., less crime). In Conclusion I would say dictatorship isn't The best way to run a Country, If i had an option to live in dictatorship Country or a demorcay Country, I would pick democarey because i don't want to be living in Contant fear and strict rules to follow or there would be Concesgenes, and I belives That most people would agree with me. In Other words living in a dictatorship Country is a very bad Thing to have to go through, So... I am disagreeing to this statement. God Bless Those people who are living a dicatorship Country. Thanks
On the other hand, a small minority (perhaps 5%) might agree with dictatorship because they benefit from the system. I am giving a reason for the 5% you mentioned. For example, if someone is close friends with the dictator or works in the government, they might have power and wealth. For these specific people, a dictatorship is a "good thing" because they are protected, even while the rest of the country lives in "constant fear." I provided a logical reason why someone would agree, filling the gap in your argument.
Some people may strongly agree with this statment because To be a dictator, you would either have to inheraite it - if you have a blood line or was heir to be the next dictator to run the country, or you chose force to become one. You explain HOW someone becomes a dictator (inheritance/force), but you haven't explained why this is a "best way" (AGREE). Does inheritance create stability? However, some people may strongly disagree with this statement because in the first paragraphy Some people would Come by force meaning that there wouldn't be enough freedom or human rights in that country, and significant problems like; wars, taxes, loss of human rights, e.g. You correctly identify the negatives: lack of freedom, wars, taxes. To Conclude, I personally believe that some people may not agree with this statment due to the fact that if a Countries dictor was brought by force, people possibly would nt want to live in any country like that. A simple conclusion rejecting force.
Some people might agree that inheritance is a good way to choose a leader because it provides stability. I am improving your point about "blood lines". If the leadership passes automatically to the "heir" or son, then there is no confusion or fighting about who runs the country next. In some people's eyes, this simple transfer of power is better than the arguments that happen during elections. I explained WHY inheritance might be seen as a positive (stability), rather than just stating it happens.
A dictatorship is when a country is ruled by someone who comes into power through inheritance or force and rules without allowing the people of the country their freedom. Some people may agree this is the best way to rule a country because of control. For example, Dictators would keep the country very controlled in their own way. This could be good to stop anyone from breaking rules or laws, trying to get into power and keep the country stable. You have identified "stability" and "control" as key arguments for dictatorship. This is a solid political argument. However, some people believe this isn't a good way to rule a country as it can be very dangerous. For example, many people were killed and executed for their looks and beliefs in many countries that have been ruled by dictators. Additionally, dictators can be very corrupted and use their power to their advantage. "Killed for their looks and beliefs" is a strong point—referencing genocide or persecution without naming it explicitly. This shows that dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country as many get killed and are in fear. To conclude, I believe that dictatorship is not the best way to rule a country because many people are not safe and free, which is against everyones human rights. Clear conclusion based on safety and rights.
However, I strongly disagree because history shows that dictatorships are dangerous for minority groups. I am focusing on your point about people being killed for "looks and beliefs". As you pointed out, dictators often execute people just for their beliefs or identity. A horrific example of this is Nazi Germany, where millions were killed not for crimes, but for who they were. This proves that while a dictatorship might have "control," it is often used for evil purposes rather than keeping people safe. I added the specific example of Nazi Germany to support your argument.
I dissagre as in a dictatorship everyone is at the mercy off a singal person (the leder) but in a democracy People get to vote on who they want to be leader and there is an election to decide on who it woud be Good comparison: "Mercy of one" vs "Vote". and if your in a dictator ship you woud want to rebel more than if you were in a democracy as in a democracy you are bacicly a slave to the more welthly / powersull as In a dictatorship the more welthy or powersull you are better tereated but in a democracy evryone has a chance to be who they want whenthey want and how they want comped to a dictator ship. In my opinion a democracy is a better place to live in compead to a dictatorship in which i woud not want to live in eny time soon. A personal opinion is given.
I disagree because in a dictatorship, citizens are essentially slaves to the leader. I am refining your "slave" point. Because one person holds all the power, the ordinary people are at their "mercy," as you said. They cannot speak, vote, or object. Unlike a democracy, where everyone has equal rights regardless of wealth, a dictatorship creates a system where only the powerful are treated well, leaving everyone else to suffer. I clarified your comparison between the powerful and the ordinary citizens.
Strongly I dissagree with this statement as, in a dictatorship the citeze citizens don't get to choose how they can make the city a better place for them and to much power an control given to that dictatorship will eventully corrupt. You identify "corruption" as the inevitable result of too much power. This is a key political concept. However, some may strongly agree as they think with more power and control, The better the place will be. Another reason is that some may think "whoever is in power knows the best for us" or might think voting doesnt mean anything or political parties are useless. Good identification of why people might support it: trust in the leader ("knows best") or cynicism about voting ("useless"). To conclude I personly belive that a democracy is the best way to run a country as if you don't like your previous leader, you can vote for a new one unlike dictatorships. The people who run as a democracy have political parties letting us know the promises and future they will give us if they win the vote. in a dictatorship, there are NO political parties so they don't promise anything or try to make your city a safe space for all. Excellent point about "promises." In a democracy, leaders have to earn your vote; dictators don't.
Some people might agree with the statement because they trust that a powerful leader "knows best." I am building on your quote. If people believe that political parties are "useless" and just argue all the time, they might prefer a dictator who can take charge and make decisions for them. This is often called a 'benevolent dictator'—someone who has total power but uses it to help the people, though such leaders are very rare. I introduced the term 'benevolent dictator' to describe the type of leader you were talking about.
i Strongly disagree because a dictorship is when somone comes into Power by force or inheritance which is unfair without a vote which means they may not even want to that leader to be in Power Basic definition and opinion provided. and as you can see in a dictorship like Russia perstain Stalin was a very known dictator and in his one every thing was forcel to go wrong. You have identified Stalin, which is a great historical example.
I strongly disagree because history shows us how dangerous dictators can be. I am expanding your point about Stalin. For example, you mentioned Stalin in Russia. He was a dictator who came to power and used force to control the population. Under his rule, millions of people suffered because they had no way to vote him out. This proves that when a leader has absolute power, things often "go wrong," as you said, because there is no one to stop them. I turned your brief mention of Stalin into a full paragraph explaining the consequences of his rule.
In this quote it states that dictatorship is far more better than democracy So before i give my oppinion let's here some statements. Some people may strongly agree with this statemen because they think that by choosing our leader it could lead to ruining the country. but (better) People better believe that if a dictator run's a country they could control the power and know whats right. In addition, due to dictatorship some citizen may thinu that the leader is rich on his money and could maue our country better by the use of their Sources. The idea that a rich leader might use their own resources to help the country is an interesting one. However, some people may dissagree with this point because by Electing a leader it would be fair and citizens could share thier perspective on what they thinu. By cifezen belives that If a democracy rule our country everyone could get a right of freedom for each pupil in the country this Increases the number of people that belive democracy is indeed a better way to rule a country. Democracy can give better life an opportunities, Now this is what peope state. What do you thinu. You focus on "perspective" and "freedom," which are strong democratic values. To conclude the overal statment, I pearsonally belive that democracy is the right way to rule a country because you get a freedom of right and get a fair vote for a leader. If a democracy rules our country on a country local citizens could get a chance to try and become One reader them selfs and gives other citizens the chance to vote for who they thiny is right to rule our / a country. Good point: Democracy allows ordinary citizens ("local citizens") to become leaders themselves.
However, I disagree with the statement because democracy offers fairness and opportunity. I am developing your conclusion. As you mentioned, in a democracy, even a "local citizen" has the chance to become a leader. This means the government represents normal people, not just the super-rich. This freedom to "share their perspective" creates a society where everyone feels valued, unlike a dictatorship where only one person matters. I polished your point about citizens becoming leaders to highlight the equality of democracy.
I disagree with this statement because a dictorship is Someone comes Through force or interitence which isn't fair. Everybody Should be able to vote for whoever they want as their opinions matter. Living in a dictator ship can take away many rights, and it takes away freedom. Clear opening setting out the moral argument against inheritance. Some people may strongly agree with This statement because a dictatorship gives the leader more powerful. Also, some people believe that comige through force or inheriteace is fair. They may believe That a dictatorship is the best way to rule a country. You say they might believe inheritance is "fair." You need to explain WHY. (e.g., "Because it is tradition" or "Because God chose them"). Some people may strongly disagree, as, they may believe That people should be able to vote for their leader. They may believe that force or inheritance isn't the right way. and That everyone should be free to vote. They may believe that dictatorships are unfair as, they haven't earned to become a leader. "Haven't earned it" is a key phrase. This is the concept of Meritocracy (earning your position). To conclude I personally believe that a dictatorship is never the best way to rule a country but, democracy is as, you get to choose who gets to control your area/country as, inheritance isn't fair as you haven't earned the role of being leader but, you're just stealing it. I disagree with this statement and that is my final conclusion. "Stealing it" is a powerful way to describe taking power by force.
I firmly believe that dictatorship is the wrong way to run a country because the leaders have not earned their position. I am formalizing your point about "stealing" vs "earning". In a democracy, a leader must work hard to win the people's trust. In a dictatorship, power is often inherited or seized by force. As you stated, this is essentially "stealing" the role. Because they haven't earned it, they are less likely to respect the people or work hard for the country's benefit. I expanded on the idea of 'merit' that you introduced.
I personally disagree with the statement 'A dictatorship is the best way to run a country.' A dictatorship is when someone comes to a position of authority through inheritance or through force. Some people may strongly agree with this statement as some dictators have better leader qualities than if you were to a democracy. For example some dictators have qualities such as great with the military, this is a very good point to as of the amount of conflict there is rising in the world today they could defend the country. Dictators are powerful and intimidating for challengers such as Kim Jong Un he has kept his role of prime minister of North Korea without a war showing dictators have strong self-esteem and will power. therefore the minority of people agree with dictatorships. This is a fascinating argument. You argue that dictators are "intimidating" and this keeps the country safe from war. This is a very sophisticated "Realist" political argument. However there is a downside and others may strongly disagree with this statement because democracy's are fairer as people have a right of speech and their human rights are protected as well as they can speech their minds about who they want and whatnot. For example voting for Keir Starmer head of the labour party. people vote for him because of his speech and convincing ways, and changes each candidate in the voting system bring for their era. therefore the majority of people agree with democracy as the majority of the world live in one. Great use of current affairs (Keir Starmer/Labour Party). It shows you understand how the current system works. To conclude, I personally believe that the statement is disagreeable because of the majority of people living in one are either secluded from the outside world or facing poor country conditions as dictators promise a better future and use propaganda to convince people. But really they are manipulating people. Strong conclusion introducing "propaganda" and "manipulation".
Some people might argue that a dictatorship is safer because the leader projects strength. I am polishing your point about "intimidating" leaders. As you mentioned with Kim Jong Un, a dictator often has total control over the military and can appear "intimidating" to other countries. Some might believe that this strength protects the country from being attacked, whereas a democratic leader might be seen as weak or indecisive during a crisis. I clarified your argument: Dictator = Strong Military = Safety.
A dictatorship is a person who comes to power by force, power or inheritance. I disagree with this statement as a dictatorship does not give you a chance to freely decide what you want (individual liberty) which is one of the British values/laws but it could also be a way to have a united society. Excellent introduction integrating "British Values" and "Individual Liberty." Some people may agree with this statement because it gives a peace of mind and not controversy over who will be leader. For example, there are some dictatorships that are benevolent; they provide for the people and make sure that the country is being run well and people have quality lives. It can also unite people as one. This explains why a dictatorship is the best way to run a country. You used the term "Benevolent Dictatorship" correctly. This is high-level terminology. However, some people may strongly disagree with the statement because it does not give others a right to a say which is one of the human rights that should be mandatory upon everyone. For example, England has political parties which gives you the opportunity to pick who you want to run the country. England also uses the First past the post system to which means the first person with the majority of seats in the House of Parliament wins. Another reason why is that people have fought to get a democracy especially women like the Suffragettes. Emmeline Pankhurst was a very important woman who pioneered to help woman vote. Outstanding evidence: First Past the Post, Suffragettes, Emmeline Pankhurst. This is Grade 9 knowledge. Additionally, during the 1990s when Milosevic was in power it was a dictatorship during that time and things in Serbia did not go well. For example, there were international sanctions on food, clothing and other essential resources. This links to the statement as it tells us from previous historical events that it was certainly not the best way to run a country. To conclude, I personally believe that a dictatorship is not the best way to run a country due to past events like Stalin, Milosevic and North Korea. I believe positively that citizens deserve to get a say over how they want their country to be run. This is why a democracy is more efficient. A fantastic conclusion synthesizing multiple examples.
Furthermore, historical evidence shows that dictatorships often lead to economic ruin. I am focusing on your excellent Milosevic example. As you correctly identified, the dictatorship of Milosevic in Serbia led to international sanctions. This demonstrates a key weakness of dictatorships: their aggressive behaviour often isolates them from the rest of the world. The result is that ordinary citizens suffer from a lack of "food and clothing," proving that one person's power can destroy a whole nation's wellbeing. I took your evidence and explicitly explained the CAUSE (aggressive behaviour) and EFFECT (suffering/sanctions).
I dissagree withe this answer because We should have our human rights and we should have the choice weather to vote on which candalite we prefer, let's say If someone is priminister because of thier inheritance that shouldn't mean that they will be capable of running a country. It's unbelivable to give someone power if they might not know what thier doing. Good point: Inheritance does not equal capability. I believe that our community should have our rights and our capability to choose what priminister we would like to have. Some people would stronly agree with this statement because we wouldn't want to have the right on to choose which candadite we think should rule us. However some people may stronly dissagree with this statement because they wouldn't want to go vote because they might be lazy or something. they also might think its a better idea because if someone was good to rule the they will think that thier family member would be capable to rule as good. You raise an interesting point about voter apathy ("lazy"). To conclude 1 personly believe and also the majority believe that we should have our own choices. this is because whoever picks the most of the candadite then they will be happy with thier choices. Simple conclusion about happiness and choice.
I disagree with the statement because inheriting power does not make someone a capable leader. I am refining your point about inheritance. As you argued, just because someone's father was the leader, it "shouldn't mean that they will be capable." Running a country requires skill. In a dictatorship, an incompetent heir could ruin the country, whereas in a democracy, we choose the person with the best skills. This makes dictatorship a risky and "unbelievable" way to manage a nation. I turned your observation into a formal comparison between Skill (Democracy) and Luck (Inheritance).
I agree with this statment because when a country has democracy, poor desicions could be made by the public as they might not think strategically and rather off emotions unlike some one with more experience such as a prime minister. this may cause many dilemmas such as civil war. Furthermore, If the public are having a disagreement this could cause many dilemands such as civil war. This is a very clever argument called "The Tyranny of the Majority" or mob rule. You argue that the public can be emotional and wrong. Very good critical thinking. Howerer, I also disagree with this statment because some leaders might make rational desicions that the public don't agree with which would only cause more problems. Also if they allowed the public to help make desicions they could more easily find a solutions to problems that people would actually agree with. therefore decreasing the chances of civil war or protest. Good counter-point: ignoring the public leads to protests. To conclude, I personally beleive that Democracy is the best way to rule a country. I think this because it is better to hear the opinions of the people that have to deal with the consequences of the enoices made and allow them to shere their opinion on. This would allow the government to have an actual insight on how it affects the public and helps them to make better and more efficient desicions for their country. Excellent explanation of WHY democracy works: "insight" from the people leads to "efficient decisions."
Some might agree with dictatorship because they believe the general public is not qualified to run a country. I am formalizing your point about "emotions". As you noted, the public often votes based on "emotions" rather than strategy. A dictator, who is a professional leader, might make difficult but necessary decisions that the public would reject. Therefore, a dictatorship could be seen as more stable, avoiding the "civil war" or arguments that come from a divided public. I clarified your argument that 'Expert Rule' is better than 'Mob Rule'.
I disagree as born Into power Means that they have no Concern for Anyone but themselves. Valid point: inheritance often leads to selfishness. A democracy is when you make oaths on how to rule a country they listen to others which is why they get chosen. However others might agree as If your born Into power your mum or Dad have experciance which means they can teach you how to run the country better and if 'they were a good leader then they may Inherited Some of their Skius. I disagree as I belive to rule a country you need to listen to others Opinion and take their advice because If you just listen to yourself thats Selfish not rule. "That's selfish, not rule" is a good summary of dictatorship.
On the other hand, some might argue that inheriting power brings valuable experience. I am building on your point about parents teaching their children. If a leader has been raised by a dictator, they have been "taught how to run the country" since birth. As you suggested, they might inherit the skills of their parents. This could theoretically lead to a very well-educated and prepared leader, unlike in a democracy where anyone can stand for election. I formalized your argument about 'inherited skills'.