First of all, your top argument completely lacks proof and is baseless. This is because you said that dictators don't stay very long, and then you said they stay in power until overthrown. Please clarify.

Second of all, the blackmailing incident does not prove why a democracy is better, which I believe is your entire argument. How do you respond?

This link shows how what he did was good while he was in rule of Germany.

ARGUMENT #3: Lots of countries want or need dictators to run their country. One example is actually Hitler. Despite all the horrible things he did OUTSIDE the country, he still provided a suitable government within Germany.

As well as that, many dictators have done an good job in making their OWN country good. What they have done outside the country to disrupt the world is irrelevant and that is why people are after them. But this does not have to do with the country itself and its people.

What was said was that a dictatorship may not have worked mostly, but that does not mean that it could not work. According to the definition, it is just one person with full rule, which could definitely be better than a democracy. What is being ignored is the fact that a democracy has more chance of being corrupted and therefore the country would be in bad shape.

First of all, a democracy might support the right to freedom, information, and expression, however, like I said earlier, corruption is a big problem.

Second of all, Germany was actually quite happy under Hitler. For one, Hitler was actually elected in the Parliament (http://school.eb.co.uk/levels/intermediate/article/603781). Also, Hitler may have committed huge crimes OUTSIDE the country, but he did many good things WITHIN the country itself (http://www.topinfopost.com/2015/01/05/things-you-were-not-told-about-hitler).

Democracy has also failed in Iraq. Here is a link proving this is true:

In a dictatorship, there is no corruption, bribes, or threats because the leader gets himself into power without the help of the people. However, in a democracy, voting for something can be hugely corrupted. Also, people who have a lot of power or role in a country will almost always get their way because they have the power of controlling people's minds by advertising or otherwise.

Dictators are more interested in keeping their own country under control, and they do that be their harsh punishments, which lessens the crimes. Dictators over the years have been more interested in the killings of other peoples outside the country, but this doesn't affect people within the country itself. How do you respond to this?

In a democracy, there is a huge chance of corruption within the government. Because the voting system is very large and spread out (for lots of people), there is bound to be people that can be bribe or threaten others to vote for something that may not be their idea.

ARGUMENT #1: First, countries under dictatorships have low crime and murder rates; this is because dictators give such harsh punishments to criminals, that people are convinced not to commit crimes. One example is in the Qin Dynasty, where punishment were so harsh that rarely anyone committed crimes. Qatar also has a very low crime rate under the “dictator” Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani.