Is Jesus Christ , son of God son of Mary in heaven now?

Con's argument seemed committed to a phrase never explained: "Jesus Christ, son of God, son of Mary." The surface meaning is clear: Jesus had a father and mother. Fine. I get it, and agree, but the insistent repetition gave it an importance never described, never realized in full. If that had further significance, Con ought to have argued it.
Pro's argument gave clear, substantial Bible verses all attributing to Christ's ascension into heaven, meeting the Resolution's demand of his location. However, the Pro's argument suffered by introducing a matter having no mention in the Resolution nor Description, the latter being identical to every Mall-initiated debate, therefore not being descriptive of any specific debate, including this one. Mall would help matters in future debates by being descriptive of each debate. The matter is whether Christ resurrected and rose to heave with a physical body or as a spirit. I have my own opinion which shall remain unrevealed since it has naught to do with the debate, but both participants then argued over the matter as if it was pivotal. No, it wasn't. Not unless we are to derive from Con's insistent repetition that thee body/spirit argument was pivotal. If 'twas, Con was required to argue the point. Nope.
Pro then. forfeited the balance of the debate, three rounds, sufficient for full forfeiture. However, the Voting Policy does not demand automatic loss of debate for forfeiture, although many voters, including me, do use that tactic, just loss of conduct point. And, given that Con's argument in R1 met the demand of the Resolution as given, and which overwhelmed Con's argument of son-of-by-two, which had naught to do with the Resolution, I declare Pro the winner.