The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

If God ran for World Leader, he would fail.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,317 times Debate No: 19978
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




This debate is about whether God has the political ability to run for World Leader and succeed, with certain parameters:

1 - God cannot use omnipotence to force a world coup and put himself into power.

2 - The God is the one defined as per the OT, NT, and other books deemed as canon by at least one large religious organisation.

definition of large religious organisation - a religious organisation with more than 1,000 members living in a single country at one time.

3 - The speculation that God would do the best things all the time as he is omniscient is an invalid argument, as it would remove the purpose of the debate.

4 - God's political philosophy will be the same as that which emerges from the OT, NT, and other books deemed canon by at least one large religious organisation. His policies will be the same that emerge from the OT, NT, and other books deemed canon by at least one large religious organisation.

5 - All people and countries (in the large majority) have decided that they want a world leader in 2012. (2012 is an arbitrary date and the idea of it being end of the world is followed by <0.1% of the people).

6 - God is running for candidacy alongside any competitors.

7 - God is running under an alias of Yaho Wei, an Anglo-American 40 year old man with a tan Tunisian father and a Chinese mother (or ethnicity is not a valid argument, and Christian followers do not know of him as God). We assume that he is in the same position as Jesus, but weaker: An incredibly smart politician, with a lot of powers (healing minor wounds to major wounds) but no bringing back from the dead, or removal of cancer from the world.

8 - We assume God is real, and the Bible is inerrant.

Round one is for acceptance. Round two for case. Round three for cross-examination. Round four for finish. An extra round is for a 6 day break across Christmas. On the Christmas break, both players must forfeit, not post, in order to give maximum time off.

If anyone has questions, post them in the comments section below. Any breaking of the rules is a -1 conduct point. Any breaking of the parameters is a dropped argument - argument about interpretation is the only exception. CON must in the acceptance name God's three largest policy areas. Unreasonable use of power is restricted: A policy being, for example, removal of cancer from existence, must have sensible origins: Yaho Wei magically making cancer disappear is not a policy. It must be actions that can be done in power and only in power.

In power meaning as World Leader.

Finally, World leader is restricted in the sense that minor bills may be passed, but any major bills must go through Parliament. God may be impeached/forced out by a vote of no confidence/forced to resign if a Parliament (which will be for all purposes the UN) allow it.

I hope my opponent is ready for this debate, and will bring up some interesting ideas. Good luck to them.


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I believe I understand the parameters and rules, and hope to facilitate a fun and interesting debate.

Vote Yaho!

He is the only candidate offering real change in a world desperately seeking divine leadership. As you, the world, are considering who to vote for world leader this fall recognize that Yaho is the only candidate you can trust, love, and only through him can you be saved…from high taxes and bad governance!

3 major components of Yaho's platform are as follows:

1) World Reproduction Bureau:

Everything anyone could ever need when it comes to reproduction. As it is the very first commandment in the OT, ("Be fruitful and multiply") Yaho places a special importance on reproduction, and therefore wants to facilitate it to the fullest abilities of the World Government.

The World Reproduction Bureau will provide information, assistance, and any service one could need with regards to reproduction. WRB clinics will be placed around the world and provide, free of charge, any service related to facilitating reproduction that is requested.

The WRB will provide a universally needed service, and a foundation for future global economic stability.

2) Mandatory global closure of business on the 7th day of the week

Vote for Yaho, and guarantee yourself a day of rest.

3) Yaho will conform to a generally libertarian governing ideology, as to allow the maximum usage of freewill by his worldwide constituency. Various regions can maintain their laws and customs without much interference from the World's Central Governing offices.

I look forward to justifying/explaining these policies and platforms as well as advancing others as my opponent and I debate this interesting resolution. I would like to thank my opponent again, and look forward to his responses.
Debate Round No. 1


OK, I shall attack Yaho's major three motions, then show three more policies which would be in his manifesto.

1) World Reproduction Bureau

(I will also refer to the penultimate paragraph, or final rule's last line, "Parliament (which will be for all purposes the UN)" for reference)

Currently, China has in place a One Child Policy[1] in which "a couple was allowed to have one child". This would directly contradict China's current policy. I will also refer to the UN's procedure, which allows the five members to veto any policy that comes through - which would include the placement of World Leader Yaho Wei.
If one of his major policies is this, then China would veto his leadership, if not his rise to power. No countries stand against the veto in any strength, so we can assume that they would support China and allow the veto of this leader. This also goes against a policy stated later, which I shall mention shortly.

2) Mandatory global closure of business on the 7th day of every week

Key word here is mandatory. I shall refer to this in point 3.

3) Yaho conforms to a generally libertarian governing ideology.

This is simply false. Yaho Wei would promote an absolute despotic - if not theocratic - rule. As the Bible as a source:

1 - King David 'Rise and anoint him; he is the one.' (1 Samuel 16:12)

2 - King Josaih "And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." (2 Kings 22:2)

As well as Ahab, Josaih, Solomon, and countless other divinely appointed leaders, he constantly promotes the idea of a theocratic monarchy. He also constantly promotes incredibly strict laws, even thought laws such as "thou shalt not covet", bans free speech "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place....", and bans 1/7th of your life from working (you've already said it yourself).

Thought crimes are tyrannical and ridiculous. The enforcement of this is impossible, the practical application of it is impossible, and is so horribly breaching human rights, it is ridiculous to promote it. He bans free speech. This is blatant abuse of power. He bans 1/7th of your life from work. This is ridiculous and a blatant abuse of power. It is not optional, I remind you. It is fundamental (ten commandments), mandatory, and expensive on a government. The massive economical change of 1/7th of revenue is removed from circulation. On the other hand, I think that robbers will be very happy when the police are off the street every Sunday.

In conclusion to this point, I state that Yaho Wei would be an incredibly authoritarian leader, and very controlling of the people, similar to a Hitler or Stalin on the political scale[2].

Three other policies of Yaho Wei:

1) International Relationship & Policies

As per the international relationships God showed to the Canaanites (genocide), Amelekites (genocide), Philistines (mahem and destruction), Babylonian Exile (clue's in the word), Midianites (genocide) and The Flood (global murder of near everyone). Now, I don't like being the one to spoil the party and all, but that's the kind of actions that lead to thermonuclear war. Not the kind of person I'd like in charge of a country, thank you very much.

2) Health

According to what we can gleam of God, we can be healed by Yaho Wei touching our diseased items, or touching us ourselves (Acts 19:12, Luke 8:48), but not by going to physicians (2 Chronicles 16:12). I can name a few countries which would disagree with this: Albania, America, Australia, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Andorra, Armenia, Algeria, and these are just the ones beginning with a.

3) Crime & Punishment

According to the Bible, Crimes should be dealt with in as harsh ways as possible: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." -- Adultery means death.

There is also the death penalty for sodomy, picking up sticks on Saturday, Cursing God or a parent, kidnapping, and many other crimes. His incredibly harsh view on crime may mean there are more spaces in prison, but seems to just be another way to satisfy genocidal tendencies...

I await my opponent's response. I am also enacting the 6-day break. If my opponent forfeits in his next post, then I shall forfeit my following one, as per the original rules. If my opponent does post, I shall not post in round 3, and I expect my opponent to do the same afterwards. Thank you.

1 -
2 -


airmax1227 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.


I would like to thank my opponent for this fun and interesting debate, and hope that I can properly debate him as it was intended.

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.
Debate Round No. 3


Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.


Pro's forfeit is understandable given the occurrence of new years. I hope he had an enjoyable time. I have agreed not to post any new arguments or rebuttals in this round. I look forward to seeing my opponent's final arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


Firstly, hope you had a merry Christmas and a happy new year also. To those who will vote, please do not penalise for forfeits that were aforementioned, as the debate stated they would take place. moving on...

Point 1 - "Theocratic Fascist"

My opponent claims that as it was the government form at the time, then it is justifiable to create monarchies. Now, ignoring how the government would still be theocratic, I must refer to three examples at the time period between Israeli success and Jesus' time with examples:

Sparta held a constitutional monarchy, where there were two hereditary kings with the power to enforce war. Then there were 28 elected members of the Gerousia. They had equal power as the two hereditary kings - except in a decision to wage war. Then they had a representative democracy to elect the 28 others for the Gerousia.

Athenian government is one that is often cited for political and history work due to their unique nature of having a direct democracy, where the decisions were done by all Athenian citizens. They were the first example of direct democracy in the world - and quite possibly the only.


The Roman Republic was a famous democratic system as it survived from 509-29BC, a very large time period in which Rome had a large democratic society, which was very successful, absorbing the previously mentioned governments. They also took over many other areas, such as Gaul and parts of Germany.

In comparison, these democracies replaced the Athenian and Roman monarchies, while many other monarchies had been replaced over time with Republicanistic tendencies. The absolute rule of Rome collapsed as the communal German tribes defeated Rome, once by Arminius against Varus and Augustus, then again by Attila.

On top of this, I have conducted an interview with God myself, and this is what he told me (yes, this is satire, but the point stands):

Me: So, God, it is nice to meet you.
God: I'll be seeing you again in ten years time.
Me : What's that supposed to mean?
God: Nothing. Just watch out for that Ford Fiesta.
Me: ...anyway, God, you rule in Heaven, yes?
God: Yes, I do.
Me: How long has your term in office as supreme ruler and creator of all been?
God : Since time began.
Me : When does it end?
God : I am the LORD. I do not change. (Malaki 3:6a)
Me : And how do you justify being the judge jury and executor with no accountability?
God : [I] judgeth the righteous, and [I am] angry with the wicked every day. (Psalm 7:11)
Me : Thank you.

The courts of Law

I concede that Yaho Wei would appoint leaders to all these cities. However, I would like to point out that so have all leaders of a large dominion - and you don't get much larger than the planet. The idea that he is a theocratic despot still allows for judges. If we read on, in 21 he states " Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the LORD your God". He still has his own strange rules in place.

Regarding Nedarim28a, I don't understand the reference. If Yaho is a ruler, then his word is the word of Law. The quote becomes null. Regarding Deuteronomy 19:15, I completely disagree that this burden is never met. It simply says that there must be more than one person to condemn him. This is exactly the same as almost all cases in law. Regarding the requirements for Capital Punishment; the death penalty is asked for in many cases, but the most obvious one is Deuteronomy 19:16-21 (yes, I used your quote :D) where it states that anyone who commits false witness according to a "diligent inquisition" - I'd love to know what constitutes this as "dilligent" -
the person will be recieving the punishment he tried to inflict on his fellow man.

More Babies Please!

"Be fruitful and multiply", my opponent interprets, means be prepared to multiply and then multiply. However, I have yet to hear such an interpretation that backs this up. I have heard it meaning get pregnant then keep doing so, or make yourself more fulfilled then multiply, but never "capable of supporting offspring". If it is simply this however, I would claim that it is an extreme waste of money as it is simply saying "have children when you are ready", and would like to hear how it would be practically implemented.

Finally, regarding the Sabbath, I have a few more problems:

1) if it is optional, then you've basically created a null policy, of which I do not see the practical application.
2) 'Taking a break' is medically advisable in short bursts, but cutting down to 6/7 days of work a week simply causes more problems. People will use this time to work on projects due, or other such things. The idea will be horribly undermined, and the cost will be outrageous. Although I will promote such an idea if it is to give every person a Kit-Kat.

I thank my opponent for his response, and understand why I lose conduct points.

1 -
2 -

I apologise again due to being late on this.


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

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.


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"


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.


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.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by airmax1227 5 years ago
Hmmm Upon realizing my opponent is not living in the US, that could potentially be viewed as unsportsmanlike...

I'd like to thank the UK as well. God save the queen.
Posted by airmax1227 5 years ago
So long as my opponent doesn't protest, I would like to amend my 4th round with the addition:

Go Packers.

That is all. I'd like to thank my opponent and the United States of America.
No votes have been placed for this debate.