The grade you see on your work is a Projected Grade. Because this was your first extended essay and you only wrote for a short time, this grade is an estimate of the mark you could achieve if you wrote a full-length piece showing the same great skills. It's designed to celebrate your potential based on the fantastic work you've started!
This highlight shows an argument FOR losing rights (agreeing with the statement).
This highlight shows an argument AGAINST losing rights (disagreeing with the statement).
This highlight shows your Conclusion, where you give your final opinion.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
The question of whether people should lose their rights for failing to meet their responsibilities is a complex debate with valid arguments on both sides. On the one hand, a strong argument can be made that certain rights should be removed as a consequence of irresponsible actions. This is because rights are often linked to the responsibility to act within the law and respect the rights of others. For example, if a person commits a serious crime like murder, they have failed in their responsibility to not harm others. As a result, their right to freedom is taken away and they are sent to prison. This is widely seen as a just punishment that protects society and upholds the idea that actions have consequences. On the other hand, many believe that fundamental human rights should be inalienable, meaning they can never be taken away, regardless of a person's actions. This view is based on the principle that all humans have inherent worth. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one should be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman punishment. This means that even the worst criminals retain the right to be treated humanely. Taking away all rights could lead to a society where punishments are brutal and do not allow for the possibility of a person changing or being rehabilitated. In conclusion, while it is clear that some rights, like liberty, are justifiably removed when serious responsibilities are broken, I believe that fundamental human rights must always be protected. Punishments should fit the crime, but they should not strip a person of their basic human dignity. Therefore, a society should be judged on how it treats its worst offenders, and protecting their most basic rights is essential.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I partly agree because if they murder or comit a crime and the court lose their right to freedome and they will be cept in Jail/prison and they could los the right to live. I disagree because if they just say to somone you look ugly they can't still have their rights but if they do somthing sirious it can remove some rights. I disagree because if you loss all your right for example you call somone duan you wont lose all your righes.
You made the great point that murderers lose their right to freedom. To make it even stronger, you could explain *why* this happens, like this:
For example, if a person murders someone, they have seriously broken their responsibility to not harm others in society. As a fair consequence, their right to freedom is taken away and they are sent to prison. This is important because it punishes the wrongdoer, but it also protects other people from harm and shows that our actions have serious consequences.
See how this version explains the reason behind the punishment? This is a great way to develop your points.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
If someone agreed to this statement, they would agree because when people do the wrong thing, why should they still have rights? The people who agreed to this is saying that we shouldn't reward them with rights and instead, discipline them. It can also be unfair to people who are doing the right thing and not causing any trouble. That's why lots of people say (or think) that people should lose their rights if they do not fulfill their responsibilities. People who disagree to this statement is stating that everyone should have a second chance, even if they didn't fulfill their responsibilities. You also never know what someone is going through, and people who disagrees is also saying that you shouldn't blame people on the spot and take away their rights for not fulfilling their responsibilities/doing the right thing. In my opinion, I disagree because even if someone doesn't do the right thing, they still deserve a chance to redeem themselves. When people do the wrong thing and try to do the right thing after, the world would be in a chaos, due to the lack of communication and not knowing that much on how to control rights. I think everyone deserves a chance and not be removed from their rights, only just for not fulfilling their responsibilities.
Your first point is very clear. To make it even stronger, you could add a specific example like this:
For example, if a person works hard and pays taxes, while another person steals from shops, it seems unfair for them both to have all the same rights. They would argue that the thief should lose some rights, like the right to freedom, as a punishment for not being a responsible citizen.
Adding a specific example like "stealing" makes your argument much more powerful.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people might agree because some people don't want to get hurt but some people might disagree because we are all a human and we are all equal and free but if you hurt someone or torture someone you will get sent to Jail and in the UDHR Article 3 Noboty has any rights to make anyone hurt or torture anone and everyone has rights where ever they go even in Jail. People should not lose their rights if they do not fulfil their responsibilities because a human has the same rights as another human and no one can lose or take away your rights.
Your point about the UDHR and jail is great. To make it clearer, you could structure it in its own paragraph like this:
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), everyone has basic rights, like the right not to be tortured. This means that even if someone commits a terrible crime and is sent to jail, they still keep their most fundamental human rights. They lose their freedom, but they should not be treated cruelly.
Putting one main idea in each paragraph helps the reader to follow your argument easily.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people might disagree, because some rights might be hard for others to agree to like the copyrighting people now day's post video's or piturces made by other people but they never get caught by anyone. Same for the right of responsibility because lots of teenager to ader adults dont follow what they are told to do and still no body dops a thing. But on the other hand, some people might agree to this because some rights should be easy and the same for their responsibility like the right to public assembly bec people might thing its easy to talk to a group of crowd of people in or outside a room, same for workers right because they might think to get a job and to work hard at your job is reasy to do from some people. Overall I don't think that people should lose their right's because they don't fulfil one of their responsibilities.
Your idea about copyright is very original. You could make it clearer by using shorter sentences, like this:
Many people post videos or pictures that were made by others, which is against the rules. However, they don't often get caught or have their rights taken away. This shows that sometimes people don't fulfill their responsibilities, but the punishment isn't always to lose a right.
Using shorter sentences can make a complex idea much easier to understand.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
People should lose their rights if they don't do the correct thing. Some people (may) heavily agree with this statement because when people see that statement they thought about when some people do criminal stuff that is illegal. If you dont do the correct thing then it ends up taking your rights since you've done the complete opposite of responsibility. Where as some people dissagree because if they think hard about it, could be just a tiny mistake or just a mistake I like not listening to elders, not taking action when people are having a conflict and didnt tell anyone about it. In conclusion I think that its wrong if you take someones rights over something that is fixable, unless theyve done a horrific action which led them to have no rights.
Your point about 'tiny mistakes' is great. You can make it even better by explaining *why* it's an important idea, like this:
Some people disagree because not all irresponsible actions are equal. A person might make a tiny mistake, like not listening to their elders. It would be very unfair to take away someone's human rights for that. If we punished every small mistake so harshly, nobody would feel safe and people would be too scared to live their lives.
Explaining the consequence ('nobody would feel safe') makes your argument much more convincing.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree because you got the chance of having rights and by being unresponsible you are wasting an opportunity that many people would want. It is like showing that you don't care about having any rights so they should be taken. Some people disagree to this statement because eventhough you are not being responsible no one has the right to take your rights or tell you what to do. Whithout your rights you don't have the acess to shelter, food, water, clothes excetra So no one should be taken, especially by anyone. In this case If many people are fighting over someone's rights the police should take control over it.
You have great points for both sides. To make your answer complete, you need a conclusion where you state your own opinion. It could look something like this:
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement. Although it is important for people to be responsible, the idea of taking away basic rights like food and shelter is too cruel. Instead, there should be other fair punishments for people who do the wrong thing.
A conclusion like this summarises your main idea and gives a clear final answer to the question.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree on this statement because most people want listen to people other people that are saying the right thing while the other person is still talking and won't stop talking as they want to win as they are wrong. Some people disagree with this statement because the person that is not doing the right things still has the right to speak as at some point they can prove the person that they are talking to wrong. In my opinion, I think no one should be taking their rights because I think that everyone should still have rights for everything because they eventhough they are not doing their responsibilities right they still have right to change that.
You have a great structure. To get higher marks, try applying it to a more serious example, like this:
Some people agree with the statement. For example, if a person breaks the law by stealing, they have not acted responsibly. Therefore, it is right that they should lose their right to freedom by being sent to prison as a punishment. This protects society and shows that actions have consequences.
Using a more serious example like "stealing" makes your argument more relevant to the kind of issues the question is about.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some People Lisagree with this Statement because Some People do not follow there Responsibilites or They Murder Someone or Someone is getting Abused And they still have There Right there should be taken away from them. Some People disagree because even if People Abuse or don't follow There responsibilites They should still have the Right to Speak there mind if even there in the wrong cuz after all every human on this earth should have there human Right no matter the sutuyastion. Personally what I think is everyone should get equal Right No matter The Skin Colour the Race where there from or the Sexually weather there Gay or not.
Your main points are about responsibility, so your conclusion should be too. Instead of talking about equality, you could summarise your view on the question, like this:
Personally, I think that even if people do terrible things, they should keep their basic human rights. A person might lose their right to freedom if they go to prison, but they should never lose their right to be treated like a human. Every human on earth deserves that basic dignity, no matter what they have done.
This kind of conclusion links directly back to your points about murder and abuse and answers the essay question.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I think this is true Somebody who agrees with this said, This is true because if someone has rights and they don't use it responsibly you can take all there rights away. But, someone who said they disagree because said Even if they dont fulfill their responsibilitys, doesn't mean you take away they human rights. All in all, I believe that it is False.
You have the perfect structure. To improve, just add your own simple example instead of saying "somebody said", like this:
For example, if you use your right to free speech to lie about someone and ruin their life, you have acted irresponsibly and should face a consequence. However, other people believe that human rights can never be taken away, even if you do something wrong. All in all, I believe the statement is false.
Using your own example shows the examiner what *you* think and makes your argument much stronger.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Yes, some people agree because it might be someone they know that has done the wrong thing and are not taking responsibilities serious. Or it might be that it is a criminal and should be sent to jail and lose their rights because of error that they commite. Some people disagree because they don't want others to lose their rights because they know that it is hard without rights and you suffer a lot or it might be because they are in the same suituation and they how it is without right. I think I disagree with this quote because every single human should have rights because if they didn't have right we would of being killed a long time ago. One of the important rights for me is the right to live. Some people would not like there babies and ask the doctors to kill them because the don't want them. I my opinion I would follow my responsibilities, rights and do the right thing.
Your point about the right to life is very powerful. To connect it to the question better, you could focus on the idea that this right is universal, like this:
I disagree because I believe some rights can never be taken away. The most important right is the right to live, which every human has. Even if a person grows up to be a criminal and fails all their responsibilities, they should not lose this most basic right. No person or government should have the power to decide if someone deserves to live or die.
This version uses your powerful idea but links it more directly to the debate about criminals and responsibility.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people agree with this statement because we are all citizens and we all have things we are meant to do. For example, provid food for your children. We must do that as children need to eat. They not do not know that how to make food nor provid what they need as a child. Although some people disagree with this statement because not everyone does what there suposed to do. but that does not mean they should lose there rights. For example taking out the trash is a responsibility but if you don't do it does not make you lose your rights. Nobody has the rights to take away your rights. Overall my opinion in this statement is I disagree as you can't loose your rights from a responsibility abut I understand why people will agree with this statement.
Your point about taking out the trash is great. You can make it even stronger by explaining the *reasoning* behind it, like this:
For example, taking out the trash is a responsibility, but you shouldn't lose your human rights if you forget to do it. This is because the punishment must fit the action. Taking away someone's right to education for not taking out the bins would be an extremely unfair and harsh punishment for a small mistake.
Explaining *why* the punishment would be unfair makes your argument more logical and convincing.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
She agrees because people that cause trouble and that creates bad things in there lifes shouldn't deserve to have rights. Also, if they have go to prison and they have it on there record they should'nt be allowed. Furthermore, people that have commited a murder they still shouldn't be allowed to have their important rights. She would say human rights should only be given to the people who were soliders that made a good impact to the enviornment. Also, human rights should be given to people who survived in country full of poverty and war. He disagrees because it shouldn't matter wherever if the commit a murder or a crime they should still have to keep there rights. They still have the right to have no rasicm. They still have the right to live there life. They should still have those because rights because its still important to them. People may say that human rights should be given to people that has lots of poverty and war in there contry. But still everyone in the world has that right to have human rights. However, in my opinion I think disagree with the statement because if those murderes and the people that make crimes will continue doing all of that bad things that there do. They won't think its fair so they might start a civil war against people and start fighting and they might even start a protest that people might get hurt.
You have an interesting idea that soldiers or war survivors deserve rights more. You could explain the reasoning for that point of view like this:
Some people might argue that rights should be earned, not given. From this perspective, someone who has fulfilled their responsibilities to society, like a soldier who has fought for their country, has proven they deserve their rights. In contrast, a criminal who has only caused harm has not earned them, so it is fair to take their rights away.
This explains the logic behind the idea and makes the argument clearer for the reader.
'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 due to the fact if someone does not fulfil their responibilities it may harm or remove someone elses rights which is not fair. On the other hand, others may disagree since no matter what we should all be treated fairly meaping, is have human rights. I belive we should always have our human rights but some of them should be taken away if neccesary, for things such as stealing, not all of somones human rights should ever be taken away.
Your first point is a great start. You can easily improve it by adding a specific example to show what you mean, like this:
On one hand, some people agree because your rights depend on you respecting the rights of others. For example, everyone has the right to feel safe, so you have a responsibility not to be violent. If you break that responsibility by assaulting someone, you have harmed their rights, and so it is fair that you should lose some of your own rights in return.
Adding an example like "assaulting someone" makes your point much more specific and powerful.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people will agree because what is the paint of having right if some people wont follow the rules but they have to and if they are just rapidly doing it on and on and on and still keep there rights the are just not getting the proper punishment they deserve. Some people will dissagree. because although they are not following the rull's they still deserves rights, as this world should be fair and equal and enryone should be treated the same for as long as they live. I both agree and dissagree, I agree because they are abusing the pawer of there rights to do crime and thats not right but I dissagree because no one should ever lose there human rigths because there human.
Your conclusion is very thoughtful. You could make it even clearer by adding an example to explain what you mean by 'abusing their rights', like this:
In conclusion, I can see both sides. I agree that people who abuse their rights to commit crimes, for example using their free speech to spread hate, have done something wrong and should be punished. However, I disagree that they should lose all their human rights, because everyone deserves to be treated with basic dignity.
This shows the examiner you are thinking about specific, real-world situations.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I agree because that people violate that violate their responsibilities should have their rights taken away. Because if this happens, for example they don't do the right thing or just don't follow the law, they should have their rights taken away. A scenario of this is like not showing up to your work or a being very dissrespectful to a person. Other people shouldn't feel upset or angry just because of a person not doing the right thing so I agree. I disagree of this because just because someone didn't do the right the other, doesn't mean they should have their rights taken away. People do the wrong thing sometimes, sometimes they don't even mean it. They could just trying to express their stress or anger at someone so they know how they are feeling. For example, someone might be getting bullied and the bulls also might be getting hurt mentally or physically. Maybe even both. So this shows that even should have a second chance so I disagree. I actually disagree because everyone deserves a second chance at something even if the thing was very bad. Some people are going through things that other people so thats why I disagree.
Your thinking is very advanced. To improve your conclusion, you could quickly mention the difference between serious and minor issues, like this:
I actually disagree because everyone deserves a second chance, especially as we never know what they are going through. However, I do believe that if someone does something very serious like breaking the law, there must be a fair consequence. But for smaller mistakes, we should always try to be understanding first.
This shows the examiner you are thinking about the complexity of the issue and that different actions might need different results.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
My point of this discussion is about that they actually shouldn't loose their human right as it is given to you at the time you were a baby plus it will be embarrasing to loose your wrights and you would feel emotional. Human rights are essential to humans such as no slavery, right to edudcation plus right to freedom. As we all know using your rights irresponsibly can lead to getting in trouble. My evidence of this is that at the start there was no rights and people had to stay in the right groups. In my opinion I disagree, just because you did a very serious crine your right should be everywhee. you go just like some one can't just come up to you and take away your right if they hurt you its better to call police to get help. Lastly, losing rights is a bad thing as if they did people would be allowed to do what they want like make you a slave.
You argue your own side very well. To create a balanced essay, you need to show the other side of the argument. You could add a paragraph like this:
On the other hand, some people would agree with the statement. They might argue that if a person commits a serious crime, like a robbery, they have not fulfilled their responsibility to keep others safe. Therefore, it is a fair punishment for them to lose their right to freedom by being sent to jail.
Including a paragraph like this shows the examiner you have thought about both sides of the debate before reaching your own conclusion.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
In some people opnion they agree beacause if you don't fullfill your responsibilities how do we know that you can help people with theres. Like your childrens responsibilte, your grant parents, your parent your pet and your self. Having responsibilletes are important not just for you but for other people. Say this yeah you go to priso like 5 or time on the finally final time you go there like when I come out I wanna to have a Job an stay out of trouble when you finally come out you have a Job intervew they said because you have a criminal recod we can't give you this job. But also some people disagree because some responsibilites can wait not all the time. In my opinion
You have made some great points. To finish your essay, you need a conclusion that gives your opinion. It could look something like this:
In my opinion, I disagree that people should lose their rights. Even for serious things, like having a criminal record, that person should still have the right to try and find a job and build a better life. Taking away all their rights would be too cruel and would not give them a second chance.
Adding a conclusion is essential for a good essay, as it tells the reader your final thoughts.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Some people may agree beacause if peoply could just use their rights in a bad way and walk away free, so there needs to be consequences for people who try and abuse their rights to get away with outrageous things. However some people may disagre, beacause they can't fulfill their cresponsibilities beacause they dont have enough resources or they just straight up cant beacause they arent in a great position, and just had to sacrifice of their cresponsibilities. Beut in my opinion I agree beacause people need consequences. They cant be going out and about doing whatever they want. People need to learn that actions mayk consequences, nothing gives them the right to freely abuse their no matter how wealthy or powerfull. however I can recognise peoples thoughts when they say the dissagree.
Your point about abuse of rights is very good. You could make it even stronger by adding a specific example, like this:
In my opinion, I agree that people need consequences. For example, a rich and powerful person should not be able to use their money and influence to break the law without punishment. Actions must have consequences for everyone, otherwise society would not be fair and people would get hurt.
Using an example like a 'rich and powerful person' makes your argument more specific and easier to imagine.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I think people should have their right because people can have their education to learn, have a job and go to school for the children. If children don't have the right to have education to learn and go school if they don't they don't have any education they might don't know how to read and write if they do not have education. If parent don't have the education to have a job, they won't have money to buy stuff that they need for their child and themselv. If the parent don't have the education for a job they might starve to death because they need money to buy stuff that they really need like food, water, books, education and clothes. Books and education are kinda the same because when you have education you can read a book and write. So that why I think books and education are the same. School is for education so everyone can have their own education or they all have education. Yes, I mean the world have the right to have education to read, and write and learn in school. I agree with the statement because people need to be responsible for themselv and others.
Your argument is clearly that rights are too important to lose. Your conclusion should reflect that. You could change your final sentence to something like this:
While I agree that people need to be responsible, I disagree that they should lose such an important right as education. Taking away a person's education would be too cruel and would stop them from ever being able to improve their life. Therefore, I disagree with the statement.
This conclusion now perfectly matches the strong argument you made in the rest of your essay.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
An aggument for is Some people will aggree with this because if they had done something wrong they did not use their rights pesponsibly. They might of for example harrased someone and they or tramatized somebody they missused there rights and therefore they should lose their top rights and should go to jail. An argument agains this would look like, I disagree because if somebody were to losse all their human right for doing one incorrectly it dosen't they should lose all of their rights. Although it was wrong what he/she did they made a mistake. Therefore they shouldn't lose their human rights. I personaly belive that they should'nt lose there all their righs but depending on how bad the crime was they should lose the right of what they used imporperly. They should have there punishment but depending on how bad it was they shouldn't lose their rights. Therefore I'm neither agree or disagree.
Your conclusion is great, but you don't need to say "I'm neither agree or disagree". Your idea is a clear opinion on its own. You could phrase it like this:
In my opinion, the answer depends on how bad the crime was. I believe that for very serious crimes, a person should lose certain rights, but for smaller mistakes, they should not lose their fundamental human rights. Therefore, punishment should be proportional to the responsibility that was broken.
This is a very strong and clear point of view. It's better to state it confidently!
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I argree I agree with this statement because people who offend others & hurt others deserve to (temporarily) lose their rights for their wrong doings. But then again, the reason why I say it should be temporary is because we are all human at the end of the day. I disagree with this statement as you don't need to lose EVERY right but just a few such as the right of to freedom (Solitary Confinement), the right to freedom of speech & etc. And we already have some examples of humans these calmer suggestions like in prison, you still get food and water but the quality of the food & water is poorer & if we took away every right, the person wouldn't last without those rights so I think it's fair if we take away some rights, not all of them.
Your points are superb. The only thing missing is a final conclusion to summarise your main idea. It only needs to be one sentence, like this:
In conclusion, I believe that punishments for irresponsible behaviour should be temporary and only affect certain rights, never a person's fundamental right to be treated as a human.
Adding this one sentence at the end would make your fantastic answer feel complete.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
This is a debate on whether people should lose their rights, if they do not fufill their responsibilities. Some people strongly agree with this statement and here are some points for the argument. People are irrisponsible if they do not fufill what they need to as if they can't even keep track of their own responsibilities, how should be trusted with rights they may abuse. People should prove they can be trusted before having rights. On the other hand, people are entitled to rights that people in the past went through tragedies to give them. If only some people get rights, all of the heroes who stood up and fought for equality would have died for no reason. Everyone deserves a second chance and shouldn't be judged based on their past. If eveyone was judged based on their mistakes, the world would instantly fall into chaos and unfairness. To conclude this argument, based on witnesess and statistics, the people who agree with this statement are mostly stubborn people or predujudiced people. However, the people who mostly agree with against are more forgiving, understanding and also some people who went through this themselfs.
Your conclusion is very insightful. To make it a complete answer, you just need to add your own final judgement. You could add a final sentence like this:
...the people who mostly agree with against are more forgiving and understanding. For this reason, I find the 'against' argument more convincing. I believe we should focus on second chances, as this is the only way to avoid the 'chaos and unfairness' that judging people on past mistakes would bring.
Adding your own clear opinion at the end is the final step in a brilliant discursive essay.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
In my oppinion I think Some people would agree that we need human rights because no one is disserent and we are all humans. In addition, people also think that equality is nessesary and we are not gree until all of us are gree. On the other hand, people might dissagree because some people has done very bad things in the world and they don't desrve human rights. Adding on to that, some people might think others don't deserve rights because they are disserent race, suith, gender, and sexuality than them. In my oppinion I believe that everyone deserves to have human rights not just because we are all humans, because we should have rights no matter the cause and we are all eaqual.
Your point about "very bad things" is good. You can make it stronger by giving a specific example of what you mean, like this:
On the other hand, some people would argue that people who do very bad things don't deserve human rights. For instance, a terrorist who harms innocent people has failed their responsibility to society in the worst possible way. From this perspective, they have given up their right to be protected and should lose their rights as a punishment.
Using a specific, serious example like "terrorist" makes the argument much more powerful and clear.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
In my opinion Some people will agree with this because if you for example comite a super bad crime and go to jail they are not being very responsible and will lose their rights for also not respect other's rights if they do they dont do the right thing. Some may disagree because for example if you do a crime but it is not that bad people should not lose their rights from that as although they did wrong they should not be automaticly taken from them. In my opinion it depends on how bad of a crime you comited because for example if you comited murder your rights should be taken as you have taken somebody elses. But if you were to steal from a shop for example even though its not the right thing to do it should not mean that your human rights and needs should be taken away from you.
Your conclusion is fantastic. To make it even more advanced, you could be more specific about *which* rights are lost, like this:
In my opinion, it depends on the crime. If you committed murder, you should lose your right to liberty and be put in prison. But even a murderer should not lose all their rights; they still have the human right to food, water, and not to be tortured. If you only stole from a shop, you should be punished, but you should not lose any of your fundamental human rights for it.
Distinguishing between different rights is a very high-level skill, and you are already doing it!
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Most people would agree to this because if you do not use their human rights responsibly they should not have it at all. It does not matter if your rich, poor, royalty or a primeminister you should never tak your human rights for granted. Although, others may disagree as if this rule becomes reality people might loose all of their rights goo for very little things like shoplifting, jaywalking (ect) and the whole country/world would be chaotic. In conclusion, I strongly agree with this statement because you can't commit a crime and then have the same rights as others. You have to face the conciquences of your actions that you chose to do. However, I think if you don't do something horribe you should atleast have like 5 human rights.
Your conclusion about keeping five rights is a brilliant idea. To improve it, you could name the rights you think are most important, like this:
However, I think even if you do something horrible, you should keep the most basic human rights. For example, everyone should always keep the right to life, the right to food and water, the right to a fair trial, and the right not to be tortured or treated like a slave. These rights are so fundamental that no one, not even a criminal, should ever lose them.
Naming the rights makes your already excellent idea even more specific and convincing.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
This statement might have many people agreeing with it as if someone uses a right incorrectly to possibly harm someone or use it for the wrong reason. I can understad many people might think that this person may have their right taken away from them. However people may dissagree with this statement as it is not fair for someone not to have a right even though they did the wrong thing for example if they had the right food and shelter taken away from them they would not be able to carry on with daily life and if you were that person you would not feel nice. Now I personly dissagre with this statement as it is unfair and cruel as Human Right number 30 suggests: No one can take away your human rights therefore I disagree with this statement.
Your point about food and shelter is very strong. To develop it, you could explain *why* these rights are so important, like this:
For example, if the right to food and shelter were taken away, a person would not be able to survive. These are fundamental rights for life itself. Even if someone does something wrong, taking these rights away would be an inhumane punishment, making it impossible for that person to carry on with their daily life.
This explains that these rights are essential for survival, making your argument even more powerful.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
Human rights are things put in place to protect people and make a safe environment. They give us accses to free education, healthy food etc. Human rights are the basic things everybody should have accses to. Some people may might aggre with this statement because they say human rights protect people and when someone does wrong, they belive that they do not deserve it for the damage they have done. The extent for which people aggre varies as very important rights, no torture, no slavery and food and water may be too harsh of a punishment. Some people belgive they should be stripped of their rights totally. Others belive that this statement is dystopion and harsh for anyone to go through. They belive that people who have done wrong should not be stripped of their rights. They belive that this punishment is tyranical and that only rights like the right to freedom should be taken away. They belive that criminals are humans and need to live a life that is standard at lecest, even the worst of people to some extent. Overall, I belive that only some rights should be taken away and the people still be punnished but less harshly. Mostly, I dissagre with this statement but only slightly aggre.
This is already an amazing answer. To elevate it even further, you could add a tiny real-world example to your already brilliant point about losing freedom, like this:
They believe that this punishment is tyrannical and that only rights like the right to freedom should be taken away. For example, the current justice system already does this by sending criminals to prison. They lose their freedom, but they do not lose their right to food, water, or safety. This shows it is possible to punish people without being completely inhumane.
Adding a real-world example like "sending criminals to prison" can help to ground your excellent theoretical points in reality.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I agree because if someone does not do their responsibilities they can get their rights taken because it shows they are not able to follow simple instructions or follow easy tasks they have been told to do or been set. They would also deserve it as it is not hard to get on with your life so they will have no respect for others so others will disrespect. I also disagree since I think is one person loses there rights that they will face a lot of discrimination like skin color, appearance and countrys they come from. I dont think anyone should get their rights taken away from them even if they are guilty of something bad.
Your point about discrimination is very clever. You could explain the connection more clearly to make it even stronger, like this:
I also disagree because if we start taking people's rights away, this could lead to terrible discrimination. People in power could decide to take rights away from groups they don't like based on their skin colour or country of origin. They could use 'not fulfilling responsibilities' as an excuse to target people, and so it is safer if rights can never be taken away.
This explains the link and shows the dangerous consequences of the idea.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
In my opinion, I agree with this statement. I agree because is In my opinion, I disagree with this statement because everyone in the world has the same human rights. For example, when a baby is born, the baby imediatily gets human rights. However, some people may agree because they don't like something specific about a person so they do anything to get rid of them away from them. For example, a black person moves in next to a racist person, and the racist person discriminated the black person and the black person never came back. Theregore, this is my overal belig of this statement.
Your example is very powerful. To make it fit the question better, you could link it to the idea of 'responsibility' like this:
I disagree that people should lose their rights. Everyone has a responsibility to treat others with respect, regardless of their race. In my example, the racist neighbour failed this responsibility badly. However, the correct response is for the racist person to be punished by the law, not for the victim to lose their rights. Rights must be protected, especially for the victims of irresponsible behaviour.
This uses your powerful idea but connects it directly to the question's theme of responsibility.
'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. Some people will agree with statement because some people dont understand mistakes and it also depends that single activity and how it might of impacted someone. If you stol something it wont impact someone as much as killing someone. On the other hand, some people might disagree with that statement due to the fact they know everyone makes mistakes and people learn from mistakes. In conclusion, my final opionion is that I disagree with that particular statement.
Your idea that people learn from mistakes is great. You could develop it by explaining *why* that's important, like this:
I disagree because people should have the chance to learn from their mistakes. If we take away someone's rights forever after their first mistake, we are saying they can never change or become a better person. Giving people a second chance allows them to become responsible citizens again, which is better for them and for society as a whole.
Explaining that this helps society makes your argument much more convincing.
'People should lose their rights, if they do not fulfil their responsibilities (If they do not do the right thing)'
I agree with this feedback on the Human Rights because many people never use their Human Rights responsibly for what they're meant to be use for. Some people disagrel with people lose they te human rights think everone should have.
This is a good start. To improve, you can add a simple example to your first sentence to show what you mean, like this:
I agree that people can lose their rights because many people do not use them responsibly. For example, people have the right to protest, but they have a responsibility to do it peacefully. If they start a riot and hurt people, they should lose their right to freedom and be arrested.
Adding an example makes your point much easier for the reader to understand.