Clearly you have lost the discussion when you have to refer to theologians, with a vested interest, rather than Scripture. The truth is the Apostles were missionaries, not Bishops, nor did they appoint Bishops in the churches they helped start. Your Theory of Apostolic Succession does not stand on the basis of the Apostles appointing the next generation of leaders. You might have an argument if Ignatius had claimed he was appointed by an Apostle, but he didn't.
The only other avenue available to support your Theory of Apostolic Succession would be in your ordination process. However, if you read Acts 13 you find the Holy Spirit first moves the believers and then the laying on of hands occurs.
Of course. Ordination always follows a discerned vocation, never the other way around. So?
Now, you seem like a nice man and you have free will to do whatever you desire. But, you are way off base here. All I can do, and I have done, is to show the actual Doctrine and how it has been attested to since the get go. It is up to the Holy Spirit after that because it is ineluctable I have truth on my side because ALL I do is echo what the Church teaches and has always taught.
I would like to ask you a question though. Why do you think I might be convinced by your ideas? Isn't it clear I reject your ideas as opposed to Church, Scripture, and Tradition?