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

Con's Conduct While I've always maintained Con probably accidentally plagiarized, his latest abuse is one that certainly was done on purpose. As anyone can easily see, Con on several occasions didn't actually counter any of my arguments, but simply referred us to read his sources. For example, one time, Con simply tells us to read "1,2, and 3" and "4,5,6". This is not an argument This is an abuse of the character limit of our debate. There is a 10,000 character limit per round. By not making an argument and referring us to his source is both lazy and patently unfair because it circumvents the character limit. I ask the voters to award me conduct points based on Con's actions. Con Didn't Make Arguments Concerning the numerous times Con didn't really make an argument, I extend all my arguments that went unrefuted. How am I supposed to know what type of argumentation my opponent was implying whenever He simply referred me to.his source? I'm not a mind reader. CON'S SOURCE CONCEDES THE EXISTENCE OF THE PAPACY One thing that was easily discerned by one of Con's sources was that Peter was the first Pope. This was Con's fifth source. Here's the link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... One need only to scroll down to the "predecessor" line and see it says Peter was the "first Pope". So, since Con asks us to accept his source as a good one, we can only presume that Con now believes Peter was the "first Pope". Concession noted. I also noticed that apparently Con accepts Wikipedia as a valid source. With that in mind, I'm sure he won't mind if I use it as well as evidence their is biblical evidence for the papacy. For example: "Scriptural texts proposed in support of Peter's special position in relation to the church include the words of Jesus to him: I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. Feed my sheep." [11] So we see from one of Con's approved sources, that there is biblical evidence supporting the existence of the papacy. Con's Plagiarism Look, I never meant for this to be a big deal. That's why I originally called it a warning. That's why I have always thought Con probably did it on accident. If he'd simplify put quotation marks before and after the quote, there would have never been a problem. CON'S CONCESSIONS While Con admits "While I do concede many points that Pro gives...", He is now trying to minimize the damage. I will be responding to the ones where he tried as much. There's no reason to talk about the ones where Con fully admits his concessions. 2. Peter having a role of leadership Con admits Peter was a leader and had authority. Sounds like a Pope to me. And as such, definitely has an affect on the resolution, despite his claim to the contrary. Con says: 3. As you will see in round 3, a clear distinction is made in my points between Peter speaking for the Apostles and the verse in which Peter speaks on his own behalf. Check my response in round 3 for this information. Sure, sometimes Peter spoke on behalf of the Apostles (as their leader), and sometimes he spoke for himself. I don't see how this is not a concession. For example, sometimes Barack Obama speaks for himself, but that doesn't mean he's not the president. Con said: "5. This is not a concession, as again Peter having authority in the church, even that which is not shared by other Apostles, does not effect the resolution or anything which I have previously said." Sure it's a concession. Notice Con admits Peter had "authority in the church...which is not shared by the Apostles,". So Con ADMITS Peter had authority that WAS NOT shared with anyone. Sounds like he was the leader of the Apostles, which would make him the Earthly leader of the Church. Sounds like a Pope to me. I extend this argument for denial 6. Logical Fallacies 1. Red Herring Again, Con seems to confuse infallibility with impeccability. Just because someone may sin doesn't deny they have legitimate authority in God's eyes. David was an adulterer and a murderer, but God Still kept him as king until his death. [12] 2. Bare Assertion...AGAIN Con tries to rebuild his bare assertion by telling us to read "1,2, and 3" and "4, 5, and 6". He can't expect us to take this seriously. This is mot an argument. Expecting us to read these sources and guess what he's trying to prove is ridiculous. There's nothing more to say here. List of Apostles Maybe Philip was a mediocre Apostle. He wasn't mentioned much in scripture, especially when compared to Peter. As a matter of fact, Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament (more than all the other of the 12 Apostles combined). We get this from page 134 of "Life of Christ". [12] Peter Leading Events Again Con misunderstands my point. Peter wasn't just the first to do some things. Unlike when Paul did something, Peter was LEADING the Church when he did certain actions. On the other hand, when Paul was working, he was by himself. No other Apostles were present. However, when Peter led the first Church council, all the other Apostles were there. When Peter preached first at Pentecost, all the other Apostles were there. Peter was LEADING. As for Con's alleged rebuttal, again he only posts a source without offering any arguments. With this in mind, there's nothing for me to refute. Another concession by Con: "The fact which I do not dispute is the fact that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which gives him authority WITHIN the Church. Unintentional or with intent, my opponent models my words to fit the persuasion that I was agreeing that Peter was head of The Church." Sounds like a concession to me. Isaiah 22 Con falsely claims Isaiah 22 speaks of the keys not being passed down. We can see this is not accurate by pointing out how the passage recalls God taking taking the authority He originally gave to Shaebna and transferring this authority to Eliakim. Then in Matthew 16:18, scripture records Jesus using the same words to give Peter authority. This implies that this authority will be transferred to another one day. Bishop of Rome Con said: "Firstly, my opponent fails to give sources that the keys of the kingdom were supposed to function as a role of Prime Minister in Isaiah, and how this position is supposed to be passed down." My response: Con asks for evidence the prime minister mentioned in Isaiah 22 was an office of succession. I'd be happy to do so: "There the prophet foretells the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim, and the prophet says to the rejected Shebna, "I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open" (Is 22:21-22). The true holder of the keys to the kingdom is the king himself, and in the Book of Revelation we see that the risen and glorified Christ holds the power of the keys"the power to bind and loose. John has a vision of Christ who says, "I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Rv 1:18). So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. The keys not only opened all the doors, but they provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office"the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself (See "A Successive Ministry," above)." [14] The fact that Peter was called rock in no way means he can't be the leader of the Church. Jesus is called "cornerstone" in Ephesians 2:20, and certainly Con wouldn't say that Jesus does not rule from Heaven. [15] Shared Authority Con says: "Concerning the keys to the kingdom, the keys are given to all The Church in Matthew 18." This is not accurate. But don't take my word for it, let's read the passage Con believes supports his case: 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.18 "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 "Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." My response: Notice, there's no mention of keys in the entire passage. Con is trying to force something into the passage that's simply not there. Apostolic Succession The Apostles have authority as long as their in union with then one who has the keys (as we see in the passage). The authority rests with the keys. Con gave no evidence to support his claims about Judas, so there was nothing to refute. False Teaching Con makes ZERO arguments. He simply tells us to read his sources. Nothing here to refute. Compare to Scripture Ask yourself why any doctrinal teachings would be for only citizens of a specific city? This is a ridiculous argument by Con. If that were the case, then only those who were in earshot of Jesus would be expected to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc. Again, this is a silly argument. Apostles Infallible Con says: "Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. (See source "9") If my opponent wishes to show us that infallible means something else only to Peter, I shall AGAIN extend this point to him." My response: As shown in Matthew 16, the Apostles are infallible when in union with the keeper of then keys. John The First Pope Con said: "Every source my opponent offered, however, does show that Peter is greater than the rest." My response: This is not accurate. I challenge my opponent to show me ONE of my sources that said Peter was Pope because he was "greater" than all the rest. If he cannot, I ask Con to concede yet another of my arguments. Sola Scriptura I still claim Con is begging the question here, but for the sake of argument, let's assume he is not. Even if that is the case, Con still hasn't shown Sola Scriptura to be a biblical doctrine. I contend that it is not. Since Con is the one making the positive claim about it, the burden of proof is on him to show it is biblical. Since this is my last round, I won't be able to rebut anything Con says in his round. But I can do this: If Con does try to prove the doctrine, ask yourself this question: Does the passage teach we should use the Bible ALONE when determining what is right doctrine? I don't deny we should use the Bible, but would assert that nowhere does the Bible say we should ONLY use the Bible. If Con is unable to do so, his arguments hold no water. Mediation Intercession is mediation. I've shown the Bible promotes intercession. With this in mind, there's nothing wrong with the Pope mediating on our behalf. It doesn't violate scripture. Tertullian I've shown Tertullian believed in the papacy being a position where authority was transferred from one person to the next. This prove that he believed the keys had more than one purpose. SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE 1. Con plagiarized and tried to circumvent the 10,000 character limit. The first was probably an accident, bit the second was not. With this in mind, I should be awarded conduct points. 2. Con conceded numerous arguments of mine as well as offering sources that agreed with me. He also on sever occasions in round four merely listed sources without making any arguments. With this in mind I should be awarded points for arguments. 3. I think my sources were more reliable, but that's up to the voters. 4. I think spelling and grammar should be a tie. Both of us did a good job. I thank Con for his efforts, and hope to debate him in the future! Sources: 11.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 12. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 13. http://www.amazon.com... 14. http://www.catholic.com... 15. http://biblehub.com...