christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender.

My opponent's argument is frustrating for a few reasons: Firstly the citation of the videos as a source of proof is completely unacceptable on this website. It is one thing to cite a website or article for data to build your argument but to claim that they prove the points you are trying to make is beyond ridiculous. It would be like me citing Jay Warner Wallace's book "Cold Case Christianity" and saying that therefore scripture is reliable and Christianity is true. The book does indeed walk through the historical discussion of Jesus, but it would be unfair for me to do that because it is my job to convince my reader not an outside source. Secondly he ignores my points that his second argument (mentioned in the third round) is unhelpful to him in this debate. He also tries to say the reason why my points are not valid about Jesus is that it is written on paper? This argument is absurd. Now even though my opponent claims that the tiny differences (which he really is just nitpicking here) are a terrible thing for the reliability of scripture I would beg to differ. In fact some of the slightly off stories are a good sign that these men are telling the truth. Which at first glance seems paradoxical, why would inconsistencies lead to claiming that the document is true? Example: The book of Mark has a bias towards the apostle Peter. If you read the book of Mark carefully, you will notice that Mark never puts Peter in a negative light, and always shows off his positive sides compared to the other gospels. This is fascinating because Mark was a disciple of Peter, so of course he would not like to put his teacher in a negative light. This seems odd for someone who is trying to hide up a lie. The best course of action would to stick to one strict story. Especially about the new leader of the Christian church. I have a few more examples (taken from the book mentioned above) however no documentation of historical events will be a hundred percent accurate concerning the events. These are four different gospels written by four different men. However, the similarities between the four different gospels despite their differences gives a coherent message on the life and work of Jesus' ministry. Now to defend my four points. Firstly, I mean all historians: Atheist, agnostic, and theists alike. They all mostly agree on these points. Now I will defend each one. 1) Stop being ridiculous. I meant the rite of burial not actually being buried in the ground compared to a cave. 2) No I mean according to the ancient Jewish writers outside of the Christian faith. They believed that the apostle stole it (even though that was later disproved as well). But they never claimed that Jesus' body still rested in the tomb, otherwise they would have dug it up and displayed it to the public. 3/4) Continuing on my last point the Apostles were extremely disorganized at the time of Jesus' death. No one properly examining the facts could say they were smart enough and strong enough to pull off the stealing the body of Christ under the Roman guard nevertheless. Peter was denying Jesus and the other apostles had gone into hiding, except John. Now with them gathered together they claimed to see the resurrected as written down in the account called the Gospels. Afterwards they went on to create the Christian Church, and the rest, they say, is history. These are the facts if you doubt them I need specifics and a historian/historical documentation to backup your claim, not youtube videos. My opponents attack on translations is silly. The phrase "The man walked down a path" and "He strolled up the avenue" are used with completely different combination of words however mean virtually the same exact thing. It may be true that some things get lost into translation sometimes, but the clear overarching meaning of these two sentences are the same. It is ridiculous to think that a man who says the first phrase and then the second phrase about the same event is lying to you. Next the demand for original manuscripts does not prove anything. If this was the case we would have to throw out all the work of Homer, Plato, Socrates and many others. It's like saying just because we don't have the original copy of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone we cannot prove that the books we have are an accurate description of JK Rowling's original story. Finally my opponent has completely derailed this debate into an attacking of the reliability of scripture and an attack on the Christian Church as a whole. This is simply evident of the lack of a proper argument of the phrase written above. He has said nothing on Jesus' thoughts on homosexuality and the transgender issue. And thus is failing his side of the debate. Also please note I am not trying, at this time, to prove the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Instead I am just trying to prove they are an accurate description of Jesus' life and ministry. Nothing more nothing less. So while your supposed contradictions may be helpful to you to disprove Christianity, they will not help you here. Just because there are small differences that can usually be explained away doesn't mean an entire document is false.