If God ran for World Leader, he would fail.

In my opening I would like to address the issues of 'null policies' and how my candidate should be understood. My opponent and I have only used arguments pertaining to the OT and NT. Therefore we can describe our representation of God as the combined belief of Judeo-Christianity. Since the rules stipulate that we will accept as true these beliefs, we ignore any contradictions between them, and accept their influence as fundamental to socio-evolutionary development. With that said, we can reframe my candidate's ‘persona' away from my opponent's assertion of being a fascist. We assume that the sources used in this debate are ‘true'. Therefore we accept that the OT is true as a guide for life, as well as an explicit instruction on specific codes of conduct. Since we accept further as a source the NT, we believe my candidate sent his son in the form of Jesus, as an interpretation of the messianic prophesies. Therefore, the existence of Jesus had the greatest reformation effect in the history of mankind, and the former, ‘exclusive policy arrangement' with one group, can be embraced by all. Thus, the voluntary recognition by anyone who would want to take it upon themselves to abide by a code of social conduct for the purpose of some greater good, and/or potential reward. [‘Voluntary' Ed: Forced conversion isn't endorsed by candidate, "Force…not be employed" St. Thomas, Duet. 10:12 etc. ) This reformation naturally allows for the abolishment of any and all previously stated policies, while allowing those who wish to follow the essence of these policies intention, to do so. And without any reason, theologically or otherwise, to feel like my candidate's will is being violated. But most importantly, the code of conduct can be both, universalized, and/or ignored. The aforementioned are some of the policies of my candidate that he feels will lead to the happiest and most productive life, and anyone is welcome to abide by them or not. If one could not make this choice, there would be no reason for free will. One can look to Heaven as a reason to abide by these policies, but my candidate believes that by abiding to the essence of their intentions, one will find the reward is inherent. Further, and to the point of the argument: Society gains an ever-evolving guide to fruitfulness and stability, and this guide must be liberalized or conserved (where applicable), specifically for that end result. My candidate would have to know his creations would change over time, and therefore allows the system to evolve naturally, allowing those who seek to follow his will (and pursuit of happiness), the greatest ability to do so. Therefore I conclude: My candidate has presented a code of conduct and the blueprints of the institutions, but allows mankind to govern themselves. Sparta-Athens-Rome My opponent's argument here is that other more democratic governments could have replaced the monarchic style government my candidate instructed the people to establish. Part of the problem is that those governments are established later, and in different circumstances. If we are assuming our interpretation of God is true, this is the period in which he was attaching his dictum to a particular group, surrounded by many others with very different points of view. Therefore, stability would be dependent on defense, leadership, and a complete lack of contradictory forces to this foundational aspect of monotheism. Which is why my candidate forbids the placement of an "asherah pole beside an alter". It is because if worship of other gods is being done in a society that is dependent on the belief of one specific god, stability cannot be maintained on that foundation of beliefs, or be a carrier for those beliefs. A level of representation did exist though, as the courts mentioned provided a justice system and rule of law. This ancient kingdom was instructed to destroy those that my opponent cited, and was in a perpetual state of war. But this is also true of the governments my opponent cites, as they were often also dependant on, and subjected to constant warfare. Interestingly, the success of ‘The kingdom of Judea" was apparent until my opponent's last government cited, The Roman empire, defeated and absorbed the kingdom, renaming the area ‘Syria Palaestina', under Hadrian (A conscious jab to the Judeans, in reference to their biblical nemesis', the long since vanished sea-faring peoples, "The Philistines") Monotheism (And Judeans) would persist however, and a stronger host by form of Christianity would manifest shortly after. Summary: My candidate needed a strong host to maintain his message/guide of bringing happiness and social stability (though varied, it's been embraced by billions. ). He instructed those people to create a government that would be capable of defending monotheism, and defeating those nations around it that endorsed a belief system contrary to those values, and potentially promoted instability… …Which leads me to Justify it via ‘international relations' in my opponent's 2nd round. It's difficult to defend genocide, but in this context, my candidate views the removal of those ancient cultures to have been for the greater good, as they maintained beliefs contrary to stability and morality. "The flood", would have to be justified similarly, as society had delved into chaos and immorality. Though my candidate promised not to do this again. (Genesis 9:11) To take this point further, (Isaiah 54:9), "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore…never again cover the Earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again" Health I partly concede to my opponent's point here. I cannot defend any passage implying one should be unhealthy. However, as I argue below, this is more a result of social evolution, in such that a low life expectancy is often the result of low sustainability and therefore necessary and inevitable. WRB A global bureaucracy would be a nice political gain for my candidate's administration, but isn't necessary for the sake of my argument. The real point is that at a base level in our world, irresponsible reproduction can be blamed for much of our conflicts. A high birthrate among a society that cannot afford it will inevitably be in conflict. I. E: X = sustainability. If the population ever exceeds X it will be brought to X or below X, by direct or indirect means. (Famine, disease, war etc. ) A) Over population in the Mideast puts itself in near perpetual conflict (A necessary social construct to maintain ‘X'. ) This is manifested in frequent acts of ‘terrorism' (suicide bombings, sectarian violence, militants). B) Over population in US inner cities puts itself in near perpetual conflict. This is manifested in frequent acts of ‘anti social behavior' (drive bys, gun violence, gangs). Each example contains the same elements: Low literacy (education) -- > high birthrate - - > poverty and death I've interpreted "Be fruitful" in a particular way because I see no other way it could be consistent. To reproduce irresponsibly, would contradict other commandments, and brings harm to the world. Therefore my candidate naturally endorses marriage and discourages irresponsible sex. Therefore having a family and children is one means towards happiness and a carrier of certain values to future generations and should be encouraged. Irresponsible reproduction is contrary to what my candidate endorses, and creates instability. As manifested as a world leader my candidate would simply be available to help interpret a guide of conduct and values that have already been embraced by people all over the world. There is no reason to believe that after a ‘forever' of existence he would suddenly become an overbearing despot upon the people of this fine planet. He will be as he has nearly always been, there for those who believe in him, and unapparent to those who don't.