The KJV is not the best (or ONLY) version of the Christian Bible

I tried a debate on this website before, but since it was my first one, I inadequately laid down the guidelines for the debate, and this led to me having to back down because my opponent and I were not on the same page. Here I wish to debate the validity of the Kings James version over other versions of the Bible. There are those (such as at jesus-is-savior.com) who almost with a rage defend the KJV as THE ONLY TRUE TRANSLATION. They claim that all other translations are of the devil because these newer versions remove things that are essential to a set of doctrines that have been in effect for many centuries. The NIV is often referred to by these people as "the devil's bible". These also tend to be those folks who have no trouble telling you that you're going to hell (a future debate). Now about myself. I was home-schooled, and as such, I had the option of studying New Testament Greek (known as Koine Greek, koine being the Greek work meaning "common", as it was the language of the common man) in my High School years. This placed me at the level of many who study NT Greek in college. Since my graduation, I have studied the language and the history of the ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT for over a decade. I've even begun a little side project of translating the book of Marcos (Mark) in the most accurate (and, consequently, most unconventional) way possible. My stance on the topic at hand is that folks who cling to the KJV and its doctines cling to the scholarship of at least four centuries ago. Since the creation of the KJV, there have been many advances in Biblical scholorship, such as the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which concern the Christian "Old Testament") and the finding of many ancient manuscripts of the New Testament dating within only a few centuries of the time of Jesus. The newer translations are based upon this new understanding of the Greeek text behind the Bible. While the formation of the KJV relied upon a document formed from less than 10 manuscripts dating mostly from the 10th through 15th centuries, these newer translations are based upon those manuscripts that date as far back as c.250 AD. Consequently, the stuff that was added to the Greek texts later on do not make their appearance in the newer translations. This is my argument, and I plan to support it with real facts. Guidelines are as follows: 1. Both sides of this debate must draw upon facts to make their arguments, although sound theories based upon presented facts are allowed. 2. Arguments cannot be made from the English of any translation. In other words, don't tell me that I'm wrong because Paul in one of his letters says one thing or the other in your translation. This is a scholarly debate involving the original Greek manuscripts behind the translations, not a battle of which Biblical characters said what. 3. You will not accept this debate for the sake of joining a debate. I hope for this to be (again) scholarly and not a matter of what you might feel in your heart. I expect my opponent to be prepared with some real facts to challenge me on this particular topic. 4. Of course, both parties must act respectfully and professionally. I look forward to discussing this topic, as it is the launchpad for many other debates to come. This website, I understand, is a bit restrictive in how much can be said in each round, but I think this would be a sufficient battleground on which to duel. After all, live debates are normally timed. Who will answer my challenge?