This was an absolutely horrible prompt question.
Making that clear, then, I'd first like to say that just because idiots disagree with something doesn't make it right. So yes, not knowing what "despot" means - that's not much of an excuse for anything. However, even though people are coming it at from a silly perspective, the question is still poorly worded and it seems unlikely to me it is effective in testing the material one would expect. I'd imagine the purpose of this question, better written, is something like:
"Discuss the political structure of the Third Reich from 1933-1945. How was power distributed between the Fuhrer as head of state and other arms of the government - the military, etc...?"
Now I know I'm not an expert on the topic, but the first thing is, I really have to question whether all these (high school/equivalent) students really had weeks of curriculum discussing Hitler's government and Cabinet and all. If not, as it would seem very unlikely for high school students to have a whole history course on a narrow period, say the two World Wars, then no form of this question should ever have appeared on the test at all, if the purpose was generally as phrased above, the distribution of power in the Third Reich.
Now, we come to the fact that the question as worded seems to encourage entirely different responses. If the test involves individual feedback/records of how you scored on essays, I would seriously have been tempted to be one of the students going after controversy. I'd assume that any student who's thesis was "Hitler was not a tyrant because his and the Reich's actions were just in removing the sin of inferior humans, which is a tyranny stemming from higher powers than man, etc..." could still get full credit for the essay. Likewise, a student who compared the meaning of tyranny in relation to current political parties or whatever should get credit assuming a coherent/well-written essay. In other words, it is profoundly stupid to ask "Do you agree Hitler was a tyrant" since the question and the grading of the exam is either inherently biased, or the responses students could give would have nothing to do with actual knowledge of history that the overall exam was meant to test. (Of course, this is why many organizations never reveal or release grading criteria, subscores, etc... - so a student who wrote something "disagreeable" can be given a 20% or whatever and can't sue, since you can't prove it's been graded wrong. Don't know what the case is here)
