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

My opponent submits that I plagiarize. The definition of plagiarize depends on the contention that someone passes off another' work as one's own. As the data from my sources were in response to my opponent's complete lack of original argumentation, it is with good reason to assume that it was not my intention to pass off the work as my own. While I do concede to many points that Pro gives, most all of them have nothing to do with the resolution. I shall address each supposed concession numerically. 1. Church Fathers support the Papacy. This, I agree with. However Pro's BOP is not to show evidence that supports the papacy in The Bible OR The Church Fathers, it is evidence supported by The Bible AND The Church Fathers. Therefore, the actual resolution has not tipped in Pro's favor at all, since he must show that both The Bible and Church Fathers support the papacy. 2. Peter having a role of leadershipThis was never something which I was against. Peter was an important apostle, it is no doubt that he had authority within the church. This does not effect the resolution and was never said against, so this is not a concession. 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. My opponent is in error. When I said that Peter is speaking on his own behalf, it did not relate to the verse in which he speaks on the behalf of the apostles. This is clear since the two paragraphs are separate. My opponent is wrong, either out of deception or ignorance. 4. This was an actual concession. I had misrepresented my opponent's argument. 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. 6. 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 said previously. Logical Fallacies1. Red HerringPro does not understand the concept of The Papacy. If one man is given Supreme power over the interpretation of Scripture and infallibility in certain areas, then such a person acting against God's Word would seem to show a lack of divine inspiration in his actions, thus showing The Papacy to not be something which God supports. 2. Bare AssertionThe list of Popes contradicting or reversing previous decisions and Popes can be found in sources "1", "2", and "3". My opponent shall now have nowhere to run. The list of scripture detailing Paul having the same authority as Peter can be found in sources "4" "5" and "6". List of ApostlesMy opponent shows that one Apostle changes in the texts. I recant the second exclamation, however Phillip is still fifth in all instances. Since one of my opponents arguments for Peter being Pope is that he is listed first, it seems that using the same argument for Phillip being a mediocre apostle shows its own fallacious nature. Just because a name is mentioned in the exact same order every time it is mentioned, does not mean there is a connection. I will leave it up to my opponent to show how his argument works for Peter and not Phillip. Peter Leading EventsPro simply misunderstands my point. If one does do the first of something, they are in a position of power in this situation. This is why my opponent gives so many verses which show Peter doing the first of something. Paul also did these things, and it gives him no more power than that of Peter. Pro also says that I give no evidence for Paul doing first things. This shall be source "7"Peter as Head of The ChurchThe 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. Also, Isaiah 22 says that the keys are to be exclusive to one man. Unless that one man is the position of Pope, which my opponent has not shown, it seems that the claim that Isaiah 22 is a figure which is passed on is simply false. In fact, verse 24 shows that the glory of his own family will be hanging from him, showing that this is not something which shall be passed down. However, do note that the name of the servant can refer to a king or his position, but that it is not used in such a way here, as it expresses singularity. Bishop of RomeFirstly, 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. Secondly, Peter was already told that he was the foundation of The Church, not the top from which to rule. I will leave this alone until my opponent can give some verifiable sources. Shared AuthorityConcerning the keys to the kingdom, the keys are given to all The Church in Matthew 18. 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.”Note verse 19, it refers to two of you on earth. The Pope is only one man, so therefore the keys to the kingdom is not a good argument in support of The Papacy. Clearly, as shown here, The Church has the keys to the kingdom, for it has the power to bind and loose.Apostolic SuccessionMy opponent here even agrees that the binding and loosing was given to The Apostles, furthering my argument above. Pro also is silent about the part where I showed he was himself in error about the succession of Judas. My opponent gives us no good reasons to think that this authority is to be passed down. He even asserts that it will be passed down without giving a reason why. I shall grant him an extension on this front to show us that apostolic succession for keeping the church out of error is biblical. False TeachingAgain, these can be found in sources "1" "2" and "3". In my own defense, however, I thought it only common knowledge that a Pope has reversed the decision of another Pope. Compare to ScriptureMy opponent's claim for us to follow everything The Apostles taught is indeed very true, however the original claim was that we are not to base our comparison on scripture alone. The verse which he uses to defend this claim is a verse which is explicit to only Paul and his companions, when preaching in Thessalonica. (See source "8")Apostles InfallibleInfallible: 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. Definition of PopeOpponent agrees, as I shall guess. John The First PopeEvery source my opponent offered, however, does show that Peter is greater than the rest. This is used to show that he was The Pope. I am simply showing that the same arguments can be applied to John. I shall, once AGAIN, extend this point to Pro so that he can make a relevant rebuttal. Sola ScripturaThis is not begging the question, as the conclusion is not assumed, but only made false when the premise is correct. So, for instance, if my opponent claimed that the Earth was 6000 years old, and I said that this is impossible due to carbon dating, my opponent's rejection of carbon dating does not make my argument a question begging argument. If my opponent would like to suffice the BOP for his suggestion, I will extend it to his conclusion. Official doctrine which was sanctioned by The Pope shall be listed in source "10". Also, should it matter? If The Papacy is truly a divine position, then anything allowed by The Pope should also be infallible. MediationMy opponent makes a non-point here, by talking about intercession for all people. This does not further the point that there is but one mediator between God and Man, as if this verse supports The Papacy, then The Pope cannot be one position, as the verse address all prayers. My opponent has not shown us why The Pope is an exception to this rule. TertullianThe beliefs of tertullian on Apostolic Succession have no meaning, as the quote given has nothing to do with The Papacy nor the function of the keys of the kingdom. Pro gives no reasons why Tertullian does not believe in the very thing which he is arguing for. Pro has not given us any good reasons to accept his claim. Vote Con.Sources: 1. http://jloughnan.tripod.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.quora.com... (informal)4. https://www.biblegateway.com...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...6. http://www.cuttingedge.org...7.http://www.historymakers.info...8.http://biblehub.com...9. https://www.google.com...10. http://en.wikipedia.org...