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

Goodness gracious you are not short winded. I won't analyze the individual videos; I apologize to my opponent but I don't have 2 and a half hours to watch them all and have the time to break down there components and give a satisfying reply. I will however reply to the majority of the arguments my opponent brought up in this debate in my rebuttal. First off... "flat out lie in an attempt to prop yourself as being Hi Ho Sliver riding on his manure spread filled with his christ crispiy snack crackwhores and cheesewhiz fillings in a meager attempt to cover" this may be the best phrase I've ever read on this website. Now let's discuss your two main points in the second round of the debate. 1.) The first argument, which has the greater validity of the two, is on the reliability of the Scriptures 2.) The second argument is on the fact that no Christian follows Jesus truly. Now for the sake of argument let us assume that you are correct in the second point, that no Christian really follows Jesus. What does that say about what Jesus' thoughts on homosexual and transgender people? It says absolutely nothing, it is simply an ad hominem on the Christian community. To back up to my opponent's first point let us discuss the reliability of the scriptures. Note that the majority of historians all agree on four things regarding the life of Jesus. 1) Jesus died on a cross and was buried 2) Jesus's tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body. 3) Jesus's disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead. 4) Jesus's disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations. Now I will not go extremely far into the historical argument for the Christian faith, however I would like the reader to note that in nearly all of these points that no one doubts Jesus' existence. Now I once again will discuss the nature of biblical translation. The current translation is translated from the earliest manuscripts which are tested against each other for historical accuracy. If it is not satisfying that there is no originals you are being completely ridiculous. If you began using that standard of logic for every historical document, we would have to throw away a majority of our history books. The gospels are one of the most historically best cited documents of the ancient world. I would need some very strong evidence to dissuade me of that fact. Now I will respond to the claims of my opponent made in the third round that did not fall into an ad hominem fallacy. On the verses Matthew 19:4-6 nothing is wrong with my interpretation of the verses, and my opponent failed to offer a fair alternative so that point stands. Now for a point of clarity on the verses in Matthew 15. The word used in the KJV is fornications and the word in the NIV (which I was using at the time) was sexual immorality. The sin of fornication is that which is sex outside of the biblical definition of marriage (strictly between a man and a woman). The meaning does change slightly when the word is pluralized from the Greek from porneu!3; to porneia (fornication to fornications). The second is a noun and involves a broader application of sexual immorality to include things such as incest, homosexuality, and premarital sex. Thus even though my opponent may want to throw the interpreters under the bus the two words mean practically the same thing. Another note about his attack on my interpretation of the Bible was that Jesus did not explicitly state things and thus my interpretation is inherently wrong or only applies to the interpreter. This statement is a distraction from my argument and does not help his case. Had he said, no Jesus said in another preaching x, y, and z so clearly he couldn't mean that or gave a better interpretation in the context of the situation I would be willing to accept such argument. Instead he simplified the preaching of Jesus to something he wants spelled out simple. Now the majority of my argument still stands strong. My opponent has failed to put up a valid argument, and in its stead a slur of insults directed at the Christian. To my opponent I beg for a stronger response that does not rely on ad hominems. I await your reply and am excited to respond. Side Note: Still need some clarity on the discrepancy mentioned in round 2. Thanks a lot!