Hunter 8G

It is a stretch to say that dictators do not know what they are doing, as many do and many are appointed because they are believed to be good leaders. While some may not be, some are. On top of that, some democrat leaders may also not be good leaders, but that happens everywhere and is not really because of the government type itself.

When the power is spread out, the fact that there are so many people's opinions can lead to a lot of confusion. When so many people's opinions are inputed, especially in a voting matter, only the majority vote's opinion actually gets addressed. If you strongly believe something, however not as many people believe it, then your opinion will not be heard, even if it is morally a better option.

Argument #3:

A dictatorship is better because in a democracy, people do not have the experience, knowledge, and overall awareness of all aspects to make decisions for themselves. They don’t know what’s best for themselves compared to someone who actually takes the time to study and criticize laws and changes for a country and the benefit of the people. Some people don’t even know the political issues at hand, so how are they supposed to give a viable opinion of it? In a dictatorship, leaders study the issue precisely and know all aspect of the issue in order for the solution to benefit the community.

There have been cases where the democrat leader does not please the people and turns into a cruel dictator, even after influencing the people to vote for him because he is "the perfect leader."

An example of this can be the leader of Putin in Russia. He is starting to be considered a dictator, even though he was voted into power. As well as him, the leader of Turkey, is pretty much a dictator now, however, he was also voted into power.

A democracy only takes time to hear different people's opinions, which is often very biased. However, in a dictatorship there is also some time taken by the dictator to make his decision to best benefit the country. With this time, he/she can analyze every aspect of the problem and see the pros and cons of different decisions, instead of acting on people's biased opinion.

While it is true that democracies have a relationship with the people, it is only the majority vote that gets chosen. While a democrat leader might get influenced by the people on his decision, he still generally has final say and the people may be influenced by his opinion as well. Many democrat leaders also end up becoming dictators as greed for power takes over them, and the relationship with the people is then gone. This happens to be how many dictators come into power, so the relationship with the country's citizens is not always there in a democracy after a certain period of time.

I agree with this because it is true that a dictatorship is more efficient. If there is a serious problem in a democracy, it would take so much more time to resolve it if you get the people involved. In a dictatorship, serious problems (and all problems) would be addressed quickly compared to a democracy.

While this may be true, there are also dictators who are very beneficial and who are actually good for the country. It all depends on the people themselves, not the government type itself.

For example, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda came into power, and used all that power, to stop the extreme genocide that had been happening in the country for about 100 days. A genocide where roughly 800,000 people died. He’s helped rebuild and reshape Rwanda to their best shape yet. He was a very good dictator and was actually beneficial, so not all of them are cruel.

There are also dictators who come from a democracy and from having power through a democracy. So, as a matter of fact, leaders in a democracy can also end up being harmful and cruel. For example, the leader of Putin in Russia is starting to be considered a dictator, even though he was voted into power. Another example is the leader of Turkey, who is pretty much a dictator now, however, he was also voted into power.

While a democracy does allow human rights, so does a dictatorship. A dictatorship itself says that there is one person in charge, but that doesn't exactly mean that they will not have basic human rights such as freedom of speech. That all depends on the dictator himself.

Argument #1:

A dictatorship has never been said to be cruel or harmful, in fact it started off in 510 BC in the Roman senate and only for emergency states, as it was thought that it would be better if only one person made the decisions at certain times. The term “dictatorship” simply describes a person in power. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the person who becomes in charge. Believe it or not, there are actually people out there who want to come into power for the benefit of the people, instead of for selfish reasons. Those are people that make dictatorships work and it isn’t the type of government itself that is at fault if it turns out differently.

Most people think dictatorships won’t work, however proving this wrong is President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. He came into power, and used all that power, to stop the extreme genocide that had been happening in the country for about 100 days, a genocide where roughly 800,000 people died. He’s helped rebuild and reshape Rwanda to their best shape yet. Dictatorships can overall be very beneficial for a country because not all dictators are cruel.