If God ran for World Leader, he would fail.

I hope that my opponent had a very merry- nonspecific nor implicit denominationally implied period of- socially recognized celebration. As my opponent requested, I forfeited the last round, this was necessary because of the rules. Otherwise, every time a DDO debate round is forfeited an angel is decapitated. With that said, let's continue this debate… Before responding to my opponent's attacks on my candidate's platform and policies, I believe it is necessary to defend against this assertion that I will refer to as ‘Point 3'. In order for Yaho to have any chance in this election, it is of utmost importance that I debunk this focal issue characterizing my candidate as a despotic, theocratic fascist. My opponent cites the biblical record of my candidate instructing the Jewish nation to set up monarchic governments. Since the foundation of these governments was based upon the instruction of my candidate, they would intrinsically be theocratic, but otherwise could not function. Since this all took place prior to an era of modern governance the only foundation for such societal order would be to base them upon some type of objective ideals, in this case, the instructions of a deity. This is crucial because all of the ‘strict laws' that follow are simply to maintain such an order. If people at this time were able to blaspheme the foundational aspects of society, it would not be long before it would cease to function, and chaos would ensue. Similarly to western democracies today where institutions meant to maintain this order, (free speech, elections etc) were to be dissolved, social order would dissolve as well. Therefore it is my overriding argument that it is not so much that my candidate is supporting ‘theocratic-despotism', simply that he is advocating the right type of government for its time and place that best maintains order. At this particular time, a monarchy would have been the most logical choice for a government as central leadership would have been crucial. Ultimately this would have been the ideal for maintaining social order and this is what most characterizes my candidate's platform above all else. Summary: That which maintains social order is what my candidate advocates. At the time my opponent cites, this would have meant a monarchy based upon the foundations set by my candidate. In OUR time and place, this would mean whichever government maintains order, specifically, democracy and all of its institutions. To further reinforce this argument I point to my candidate's commandment that instructs us to set up courts of law… "You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates…" (Deut. 16:18) This would seem to contradict my opponent's argument of a general despotic nature of Yaho. Since my candidate recognizes its importance, and fallibility of mankind, he has therefore instructed that we have a relatively fair system whereby laws can be maintained and enforced. Furthermore, my candidate understands, as I argue above, that societies and times change, and therefore rules and norms must change. So these courts must judge based on values relative to their times, as it says: "You shall go to the…judge who shall be in those days" (Duet. 17:9) As I have implied a ‘libertarian nature' of my candidate, I believe this makes the case that he indeed cites a set of values and institutions and allows mankind to maintain them hence, without his direct input/influence afterwards. Further, in addressing some of the other claims of my opponent that my candidate would seek to impose his will upon societies (like China) not compatible with some of his policies, I point to the interpretation that would debunk this attack: (Nedarim 28a) "Dina d'malchuta dina" – The law of the land is law. Finally on this issue, I would like to address the strictness of the laws my opponent points to. As I mentioned above they exist to maintain order, and while sounding extremely harsh today, would have been rare in enforcement even then due to the stringency of ruling upon them. "One witness shall not rise against a man for any sin or guilt he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witness a matter shall stand" (Deuteronomy 19:15) This is a greater burden than we see very often today. The ancient courts that were most closely following the guidelines had such a stringent burden, making the death penalty extremely rare. Such requirements included: * Rigid requirements for witnesses * Multiple witnesses * Both witnesses must have warned the offending party that they were about to commit a capital offense I believe this addresses the assertion that my candidate would be despotic. Rather, he advocates a code of law relative to its time and place, that best maintains social order. Now I shall defend my candidates first 2 platforms: 1) WRB As I pointed out above, my candidate would not enforce any policy that directly conflicts with the norms of any regional sovereignty. However, I do not believe that China would be opposed, as it would function in many ways as a solution to what China faces. It is my intention to argue that the WRB would not simply exist in its simplest form as encouraging reproduction, but more importantly facilitating it. To facilitate it, a society must be able to maintain a growing population and therefore would require institutions encouraging such growth. As such, the WRB would need to follow the philosophy behind the source I cited. "Be fruitful" – Be educated and capable of supporting offspring, "And multiply" – then reproduce. Therefore the WRB provides an outlet to encourage responsible reproduction by offering education on specific matters like agriculture and desalinization, as well as economic realities that make marriage an institutional necessity. It would also provide other functions I will perhaps go into later, but for now, I will conclude that given what the WRB would provide, there is no reason not to expect that it would be extremely, and universally popular. 2) The Sabbath My defense of this policy may be a bit controversial and seem contradictory. But I will defend my candidate's position nonetheless. My opponent points to the mandatory nature of this policy as a way of furthering his point, that Yaho is indeed a despotic ruler. However, I must state that it is only mandatory to the group of people accepting my candidate's literature initially. Those people would be the Jews who, at the strictest levels, still abide by the general rules cited in the OT as to what constitutes a violation of the Sabbath. For the rest of the world, this has been accepted voluntarily, yet not until the greater social following and acceptance of this in the evolution of religion in the form of Christianity had it become a well-established mandate accepted by a larger number of people. Even secularly, this has been adopted by people across the globe, pointing to the popularity and even necessity, of simply, taking a break. A popular invention my candidate can take credit for. "Keep the Sabbath day holy", and the day of the Sabbath, is interpreted differently by various groups and thus further points to my candidates acceptance of different values, that reflect his willingness to provide a code allowing for peoples everywhere to abide by a guide that best suits them and their ideals, while still advocating the essence of its intended purpose. The current social acceptance of this policy is sufficiently reflective of what my candidate had intended, and once again, is overwhelmingly popular. As I'm nearly out of space I'll not be able to respond to the issue of international relations and health, though I believe I touched on the former slightly, I recognize that this is likely not yet sufficiently addressed and I intend to expand on those in latter rounds.