The doctrine of Marys perpetual virginity is reasonable based on scripture and historical evidence.

Last round, my opponent made a couple of mistakes, and misunderstood me on a couple of occasions. I will now take this opportunity to clear up any confusion he may still have concerning my claims: ON THE SUBJECT OF DROPPED ARGUMENTS: Con said the reason why he didn't respond to all of my arguments is because, "I didn't have space..." This is not accurate. As he was told when he accepted the debate, the character limit is 10,000 characters per round. On the other hand, in the argument he posted, he only used 4906 characters. [9] I know this because I copied and pasted his argument and took it to nebensatz.com. It's an online character calculator. So for him to say he ran out of space is completely false. Notice I am not calling my opponent a liar. That's something the voters will have to decide when voting on conduct points. I also noticed that Con questioned me quoting my debate.org source. I find this to be rather odd, but am willing to quote another source on the issue of dropped arguments. I notice from Con's sources that he has no problem with the credibility of Wikipedia.org. With that in mind, let me quote from them on the subject of dropped arguments: "An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. " [10] Basically, it's too late for Con to try to rebut the arguments the dropped. They are to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate. It is because of this fact that I don't have to respond to his attempts at a rebuttal now on those arguments. I've already won when it comes to debating those points. Con said: "In John, the disciples "took (Mary) into their own home." There are a number of reasons for this. Namely, with considerable persecution going on, it only made sense to stick together, as there is power in numbers. It is also possible that Jesus' siblings were among the disciples, neutralizing my opponent's point." My response: I would like Con to share with me which Bible translation he is using. I only ask this because after going to biblehub.com and searching all 21 Bible translations there, NONE of them rendered John 19:27 as "their own home". EVERY SINGLE ONE referred to one disciple (the Apostle John) taking Mary into HIS home. [11]. The reason this is significant is because if Mary had other children, it would have been their duty to take care of their presumably widowed mother, and Jesus would have known this. The fact that Jesus put someone else in charge of taking care of his mother is very telling. On the historical evidence supporting Mary's perpetual virginity, Con said: "Secondly, the Protoevangelium of James is unreliable. It was not written by James at all [1] and is apocryphal, and was written more than 110 years after Jesus' death." My response: The author is irrelevant. We.don't know who the author of the book of Hebrews is, but I bet my opponent trusts what is written there. As for it not being part of the Bible, that doesn't mean that it's contents aren't historically correct. My history book from high school isn't part of the Bible either, but I still trust it when it tells me Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. And the book of Genesis was written billions of years after the creation event, but I bet my opponent trusts the historical claims it makes when it says God created the universe. With that in mind, with all due respect, Con's arguments fall flat. Con said: "Next, we must address my opponent dropping arguments." My response: Again, my opponent has claimed something that is not true. I responded to EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT of his as soon as I had an opportunity. But don't take my word for it, check out my arguments and see for yourself. Again, notice I am not calling my opponent a liar. I guess he just overlooked something. Con continues: "My opponent has not cited a single historical example of a "virgin marriage" in Jewish culture and has therefore failed to answer a simple question: if Mary were planning a "virgin marriage", which, as far as my opponent has shown, never happened in Jewish culture, why wasn't this more clearly stated?" My response: As I said in the previous round, just because something is rare, it doesn't follow that it never happened. We only know of God becoming a man once too, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I already said that last round. Con said: "Indeed, for a doctrine so integral to the faith according to Catholicism,it is remarkable that the only evidence is at best speculative and at worst utterly inaccurate, but certainly not clear cut. We need historical evidence that this was practiced!" My response: Who said it is "so integral"? Not me, and not the Church. And I did give you historical evidence (Protoevangelium of James). Con said: "Alrighty, now for the big point of pro's argument: Mary was already married. This is technically true, though not in the modern sense of the term marriage. Marriage in the Jewish culture was arranged by the parents, and as soon as the bride price was paid, the couple was considered married, though the ceremony and consummation wouldn't take place for about a year. [2] Therefore, Mary and Joseph were technically married, but the more accurate term would be "betrothed" or "engaged." In this context, the translation of "divorce" is more accurately translated "set her aside,.." My response: Again, as I've said in previous rounds, whether they were married or engaged is irrelevant. The angel told Mary she WOULD become pregnant. He didn't say she WAS pregnant. If Mary and Joseph were planning on having a typical marriage, she wouldn't have asked the question "How can this be?" CON'S CONFUSION: Con said: "Now, let's look at pro's interpretation of until. He cites examples of the word used in different contexts and mistakenly concludes that is the only way in which the word is used. There is a big difference in using the word until in "until the day she died" and "until Jesus was born," and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference. One use of until is in an indefinite context and one is in a definite context. Clearly, pro has falsely concluded that the word until is used in only one context, which is false." My response: Con mistakenly thinks that the word "until" is only used in one context. I do not. What I am saying is that since the Bible uses "until" on several occasions to.ONLY refer to what happens BEFORE an event, we shouldn't be so quick to assume what happened after. The context, in this specific case, is irrelevant. We simply don't know for sure. MORE CONFUSION BY CON: Con said: "Now, pro claims that "Mary" in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother." My response: That's not accurate. What I was saying is that those two men weren't Jesus's biological brothers. As I clearly showed from Matthew 27:55, there were three women named Mary at the cross... the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Mary "the mother of James and Joseph". This shows that James and Joseph weren't biological brothers of Jesus, but rather cousins or kinsmen of some kind. Con surprisingly said: "With none of my points refuted, we now turn to pro's case. Claiming that Mary is the "spouse of the Holy Spirit" is misleading. The language used is that of procreation, not necessarily marriage. In any case, this has nothing to do with her virginity." My response: Since whem does the Bible promote the procreation of a child by two people who aren't spouses? Can you give me one example? I can give you an example where God condemns such actions: Abraham. Abraham had a child (Ishmael) with someone other than his spouse, and God was not happy. So much so that he didn't give the same blessing to Ishmael that He.gave to Isaac.(Generis 17:21). Finally, Con said: "Finally, you quote another commentator claiming that Jesus' entrusting of his mother's safety to his disciple proves his siblings weren't of Mary. This is also a non sequitur as the passage is clearly metaphorical." My response: With all due respect, since my opponent offers no evidence that it's metaphorical, his claim should be rejected as baseless. More historical evidence: "Athanasius "Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]). Epiphanius of Salamis "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). "And to holy Mary, [the title] "Virgin" is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]). " [12] Sources: 9.http://www.nebensatz.com... 10.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) 11. http://biblehub.com... 12. http://www.catholic.com...