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

Firstly, I would like to apologize for waiting a round to respond to two of my opponent's arguments. As a new member of DDO and someone unused to the formal format, I was not aware of any particular rules regarding when an argument should be answered until pro kindly informed me. Therefore, as this is primarily an error in conduct, I would like all voters (unless something crazy happens next round) to give pro the point for "better conduct," as he clearly understands debate etiquette better than I. However, there are a few points of etiquette to point out before we rebut pro's arguments. Pro, in an attempt to gain sourcing superiority, implied that he is only using Wikipedia since I"(have) no problem with the credibility of Wikipedia.org." However, he was the first to cite Wikipedia, in the second round. I am glad to clear up this confusion. I will now drop these subjects and focus exclusively on pro's arguments. Pro seems convinced that it is OK to trust a document that, despite falsely claiming to be written by James and being from the wrong time period, is just as reliable as a history textbook, Hebrews, or Genesis. The reason why you can trust a history textbook is because of its reliable sources. To give an example, the AP World History textbook at my school is used because of its reliable and numerous sources. As I have already shown, the Protoevangelium of James isn't even truthful about its authorship. Trying to compare it to books like Hebrews, which we know was written by an early disciple, and Genesis, written by Moses, is preposterous. [1] In short, pro's feeble rebuttal accomplishes nothing because it fails to give reliability to the book. His analogies are unrepresentative. Now, let's turn to the passage in John. To avoid any confusion, I will directly quote John 19:26-27. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "'Woman,[a] here is your son,' 27 and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." Jesus clearly skipped past his aforementioned brothers in doing his, but it was his right as firstborn to entrust his mother to whomever he deemed necessary. [2] At this time, John was best equipped to provide for Mary's spiritual needs. He was the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and lived the longest, both contributing to the decision. To sum up, there was a perfectly legitimate reason for Jesus' decision that didn't involve lack of siblings. When I stated that pro "dropped arguments," I used the term more liberally than my opponent. Essentially, I stated that whilst my opponent did acknowledge the existence of the argument, he failed to provide the necessary evidence to keep his case afloat. Pro's entire case hinges on Mary's continued virginity even after Jesus' birth. As this is not once explicitly stated in scripture, unlike God becoming flesh, and there are no examples pro can come up with of this ever being done in Jewish culture, it is not reasonable to believe this to be the case. This is truly an argument for which pro has and can have no response, as he is unable to come up with the examples requested. As the catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states the doctrine to be true [3], it is clearly important. I stated this previously. Pro again falls back on his beloved "How shall this be" verse, again failing to note the reasoning of Mary-"since I am a virgin?" As I have previously argued, due to the phrasing of this reply Mary clearly interpreted the angel's decree as if she would be pregnant very soon, ie before the wedding ceremony. After I claimed last round that Pro attempted to show that the Mary in Matthew 13:55 is not Jesus' mother, pro stated that that isn't in fact the case. I am grateful that he conceded the point, though it seemed as though this was in fact that which needed to be demonstrated. The verse clearly and explicitly states that Jesus had brothers. As pro has conceded that the mentioned Mary is Jesus' mother, his point about other Marys in other parts of the Bible is completely irrelevant. Now, let's talk about procreation. Pro asked me to give an example of when procreation was encouraged between non-married persons, and I am happy to oblige. In Genesis 38, Onan was ordered to produce children with his brother's wife. When he "spilled his seed" to prevent this, God killed him. So clearly, in certain special circumstances, it's ok for no married persons to procreate, and I certainly hope pro will concur that Jesus' birth is a special circumstance. Next, pro claimed that "as (I) provided no evidence that (John 19:26-27) is metaphorical, (my) claim should be dismissed as baseless." Really? Let's look at the definition of a metaphor. Google immediately gives "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." So, is Jesus telling Mary that John is his son metaphorical or not? If not, pro has lost, as I have proven Mary had a second son. But thankfully for him, Mary is not John's literal mother. Pro should thank me for taking it as a metaphor. Pro then proceeds to quote Christians not from the time of Christ who claim Mary was an eternal virgin. These quotes contain no evidence and instead merely confirm a fact: the Catholic Church believes in Mary's perpetual virginity. Both of these quotes were from at least a century after the Virgin Birth. As the burden of proof falls on pro, he has thus far failed. Good luck to him in our final round! Sources 1- http://www.everystudent.com... 2- http://ichthys.com... 3- http://www.accracatholic.org...