There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that supports the papacy.

Pro asserts that I plagiarize. However it was in response to the plagiarism of my opponent by giving the exact words of his source as his only words in round 2. I clearly said that I could go on, but that since my opponent was not interested in making an actual argument, I would do the same as he. For my opponent to then accuse me of plagiarism is hypocrisy. But, my opponent has responded to many of the points which I and the sources brought up. I shall answer them in kind. Logical Fallacies1. Red HerringPro asserts that I make a point which detracts from the issue. However, if The Pope is in a position of power to dictate the meaning of scripture, then in the presence of changes in this meaning his position cannot be of the divine, meaning the doctrine of Papal Supremacy is erroneous. Note: This only applies to instances where a Pope has changed the decisions of a past Pope. 2. Bare Assertion I thought it only clear that in the presence of differing views of different Popes, that the doctrine is in err. This is simply ignorance on the fault of my opponent. List of Apostles1. Judas being listed first is an absolute given, but that does not infer that whoever is put first is actually better or greater or chief of the rest. For instance, Phillip is always listed as the fifth apostle. Should we then infer that Phillip is an average apostle?In fact, in all instances, every apostle is listed in exact order! Therefore, given the arguments of my opponent, I could make the same point that the apostles were assembled in a hierarchy. This, of course, is not the case. Just because one is listed the first, does not make him greater or in any better position. 2. As I said, because this was only one instance, and because Peter speaks on his own behalf two verses later, it is more reasonable to assume that Peter is named before he speaks because the author is centering the story around Peter being the one who spoke. Peter Spoke for the Apostles While Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles on this occasion, this does not show him to be any greater. In John 14:5, Thomas does the same exact thing:Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”This is not evidence of any sort of leadership. Peter leading eventsI do apologize, I had misunderstood my opponent's point. Though, do note that all of my opponents points were directly taken from his source, word for word. Even in all of these instances, this does not make Peter any greater than any other. Peter was very influential in the early church, but to say that this shows a form of leadership is pure conjecture. Paul was also the first to do many things in the church, and many things also happened to him, however this does not qualify him a position of leadership such as what my opponent is arguing for Peter. Now I shall address my opponent's refutation of my sources. Peter The Head of The ChurchAlthough my opponent is only quoting his last round, which was the direct words from his source, I shall answer it. I agree with my opponent that Peter is The Rock which Christ built his church upon, after all Peter was very influential in the spread of the early church. However, as I said before, this does not mean that he is of any position of power. This is simply Jesus telling Peter that he will be an important tool in the uprising of the church. This does not show that Peter is of any greater position, just that his actions will effect more people. Again, the same argument can be made with Paul. My opponent also brings up the fact that Peter was given authority with The Church unlike no other apostle. To this, I also agree. But this does not give him any sort of position of leadership. He is simply the one who will have the greatest impact on the church than the rest of the disciples. Pro then goes on to show that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This functions as a way to show that Peter has authority within the church. I am not disputing this fact, but this does not give him a position which could be succeeded by a Papal authority. Bishop of Rome Nowhere does Jesus give authority over the church to Peter. In the verses given, it only shows that Peter has authority within the church, and that The Church will have its foundation upon him in some way. This does not show that Peter is somehow the head of the church. Shared AuthorityThe source given lists verses as to this authority being shared. If my opponent would like to refute this claim, I would ask him to address the verses just as I have. Apostolic SuccessionThe source given does not say that apostles were never succeeded. I shall quote the source once more: "Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession)"Judas was not succeeded to keep the church from error, as my opponent has so graciously offered us evidence for. I rebuke him for misrepresenting my arguments but at the same time thank him for providing the evidence as to why he is at fault. Now, my opponent may argue that if they did not make such a successor, that they would have invalidated the scriptures. If such is the case, then please keep in mind that this is also false. Judas was succeeded so that an ungodly follower would be replaced by a godly follower. While this does keep the church out of error, it is not the same as apostolic succession...where an apostle was believed to pass down his position to a member of his foundation so that the entire church would not fall apart. False Teaching. If the Pope truly is the man who is divinely lead to rule, and if that man creates certain laws that the next Pope changes, that would make him fallible and therefore not infallible. And, if the Pope is fallible, then why would God give him Supreme power? God has never given any one man Supreme power over a people if they are not in align with God. Always when a person like David or Moses or Zedekiah was given Supreme authority, it was contingent upon God. So is The Papacy infallible, or is it fallible? Compare to ScriptureThe Apostles, in the verse Pro has given, tells a group of people to follow the teachings of The Apostles.These were based on their writings and beliefs, which then became Scripture. This is why 2 Thessalonians 2:14 talks about them being saved by their own gospel: He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.This is also why Paul says that it does not matter about who tells you something, but of what the teaching itself is. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. -Galatians 1:9Apostles Infallible This obviously is giving great expression to the point that Peter would have a prominent place in The Church. If not, then how could Paul have rebuked Peter? But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. -Galatians 2:11While the issue here is that Peter withdrew from Gentiles of fear of what Jews might think of him, should this not signify an infallible message to not associate with Gentiles when one is with the Jews? To say that the apostles were infallible, or even just Peter, is a clear mistake. Definition of PopeA Pope is the Supreme head of The Catholic Church.Peter was a Man, So Everything.The Pope demands such things as shown, and yes these are modes of showing unworthiness, to one who is worthy. If not of worship, then of what? Peter was a man, not of any power than what is given to any other man. That is what the source is showing. Jesus Giving AuthoritySo often is there disconnect when someone does not use original arguments.As you can see, Pro doe snot provide any biblical justification to show that this is what Jesus is really saying. John The First PopeThe source is showing that the justifications given to Peter on the basis of him being GREATER can be applied to John in a different way. My opponent misrepresents the arguments once again. I shall now refute my opponent's positive case. All of the sources he gives were very early Christian writers, who believed that Peter was The Leader of The Church. My question is...so what? These people write no scripture, they have no authority from God, why is this important? Early people had their own interpretations of Scripture. Good for them? I don't see how this is any evidence to support your view. At best, you just named off early Christians who agree with you. How is that evidence? Also, I would like to add a few more points why The Pope is not biblical. 1. The Position of Pope violates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if any Pope were to make a decree which contradicts the teachings of The Bible. This would include many atrocities sanctioned by The Catholic Church, most notably in the periods between 1000-1600 A.D. 2. The Position of Pope violates the doctrine of Sola Singulis, due to the fact that The Pope is in a position to mediate between God and Christians. This goes against the verse of 1 Timothy 2:5For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus 3. For what it is worth, Tertuillian actually disagrees with you. "He himself finally opened first of all the gate to the kingdom of Heaven in the baptism in Christ and by the baptism are loosened the sins, earlier bound and are bound those which never were loosened according to the true salvation" - De Pudicitia, XXIClearly, Tertuillian thinks that the keys to the kingdom were a means to only be used once, therefore succession of Peter on such grounds are unfounded if you wish to use Tertuillian to defend your own position. My opponent has not given us any good reasons to think that Peter is The Church Leader. I would like to ask my opponent to not use direct quotes from his sources in bulk, and instead summarize, as courtesy. Thank You