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

Firstly, though, I would like to address my opponent's first claim on those who need authority to interpret scripture. The Pope is not such an authority, as many Popes have misunderstood Biblical passages, changed the decrees of other Popes, and have even taken actions which directly contradict the Holy Texts. So the son in the analogy given would be more like a committee of people who always disagree with eachother. Now, I shall respond to my opponent's points numerically. 1. Was Peter the first Pope? The texts which my opponent gives to support the authority of the apostles are all ones where all the Apostles are mentioned. Unless my opponent can give reasons as to this being a list from greatest to least, I do not see this as any evidence for Peter being any better or in any other place of leadership than any other apostle. My opponent also gives Luke 9:32 to show that the apostles were collectively known under the name of Peter. This is simply false, as later on Peter is asking a question to Jesus. The narrative focuses around Peter because Peter is the one who says what is recounted in the text. My opponent also tries to say that Peter often spoke on the behalf of the apostles. The texts which he gives are all where Peter is saying something as himself, not his words as a collective among all the disciples. Peter was often the one to speak up, yes, but this does not mean he was their leader. Pro states that Peter was a part of many important events, however many other apostles were also in key events. I could go on and on and on, but seeing as my opponent would rather not make an original argument, I will stop there and provide an equally representative case against Peter being the first Pope. While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behindMatthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). SeeActs 15:1-23;Galatians 2:1-14; and1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (seeMatthew 18:15-19;1 Corinthians 5:1-13;2 Corinthians 13:10;Titus 2:15;3:10-11). 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). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2;4:2-5;Titus 1:5;2:1;2:15;1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10;16:16;2 Corinthians 8:23). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18;Psalm 19:7-8;119:160;Proverbs 30:5;John 17:17;2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12). Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no. ” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25). -. http://www.gotquestions.org...Argument #1: Peter was only a man. Although this declaration is obvious to many, sometimes its implications are overlooked. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter, he told him, “Stand up; I too am just a man”. With this statement Peter implied three very important points: (a) that he was “too. .. a man”—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was “a man”—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was “just a man”—that is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was unworthy of worship. Peter, with all humility, understood that his human nature prevented him from accepting worship. On the other hand, the pope, being just a man like Peter, expects men to bow before him, kiss his feet, and revere him, thus receiving worship that does not belong to him. What a difference between Peter and his alleged successors! Not even God’s angels allow men to show adoration by kneeling before them. One can only be astonished at the tremendous audacity of one who usurps the place that belongs only to God! Argument #2: Peter was an apostle with the same authority and rights as the other apostles. On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was the greatest among them, so Jesus told them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them. .. . But not so among you”. Jesus never would have made this comment if Peter had more authority and rights than the other apostles as Catholicism suggests. In fact, if Peter was to be considered more honorable than the other apostles, this would have been the opportune time to clarify this point to the rest of the apostles who were “hungry for another’s glory. ” However, Jesus assured them that this would not be the case among His apostles. On another occasion, the mother of John and James came before Jesus with them, asking Him to allow her two sons to sit by Him in His kingdom, one on the right and the other on the left (Matthew 20:20-21). Jesus pointed out that they did not know what they were asking, and added, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them. .. . Yet it shall not be so among you” If Jesus considered Peter as greater than the other disciples, He could have clarified the issue immediately by telling Zebedee’s wife and sons that they were asking for an honor already given to Peter. But, He did not do that. Today it seems that many religious people want to make it so, and exalt Peter above the other apostles, in spite of what Jesus said. Many Catholics try to justify their claim that Peter was the first pope by affirming that he was the greatest of the apostles. They declare that Peter was greater because: (1) he always is mentioned first in the lists of the apostles. 2) he was the apostle who recognized Jesus as Lord in Matthew 16:16; and (3) Jesus told him to care for His sheep. Are these arguments sufficient for establishing the papacy or supremacy for Peter? No. Consider the case for any other apostle. For example, it could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1) in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved”; (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest—certainly a posture that suggests a close relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of caring for His mother. Does this mean that we also should consider John as a pope? If not, should we consider Peter as a pope when all of the apostles had the same authority and their own privileges? Indeed, Jesus gave all of His disciples, not just Peter, authority. Finally, consider the words of Paul. He said: “For in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing”. From this verse, we conclude that Paul was inferior to none of the apostles, and that Peter was neither lesser nor greater than Paul. . https://www.apologeticspress.org...I hope that my opponent can give some actual substance to his arguments, for as it rests now I am the only one who has given any sort of original thought to this debate.