Arguments that Catholic apologists shouldn't use against Protestantism

I looked at the site at some length, and it's obviously a Traditionalist site. "Traditionalist", in the Catholic context, means those groups that to one degree or another prefer the Latin Mass, are less involved in the ecumenical movement, and reject fully or in part the changes of the Second Vatican Council (or at least dispute the implementation of these changes). The more moderate Traditionalists want the Church to move back to a more pre-Vatican II understanding. There are other groups, such as the Society of St. Pius X which have broken away from the Church, and the most extreme, such as the Society of St. Pius V, are sedevacantist. That is, they hold that the Popes since John XXIII are impostors and the seat of Peter is vacant.

This site doesn't seem to be breakaway, but the definitely don't represent the mainstream of Catholic thought. It is good, though, as was pointed out, that they are at least honest about their debating style.

I've been taking a nice nap... ;-)

shoot - I've done some it not-so-good.

There are a lot of places that I believe the Roman Catholic Church is in error, but the bottom line (for me) is that I don't want to be the first one to question another's salvation over denomination.

I fall to it once in a while, but have been attempting to be way more careful - when somebody starts flinging personal insult and personal accusation, I tune out. That person becomes less credible to me.

I have no hesitation to "attack" a belief or position, but attacking the person is different.

This pertains to religion and politics. The other "rule" that I don't often break is that I don't go to the websites of those I disagree with in order to debate. I'll debate here, where the host is a person I agree with, or a site that specifically invites debate. I invite debate on my own blog and welcome it. But I choose to not risk being rude to my host.

Sorry, this has little or nothing to do with the OP, except that if you choose to debate this topic, you can't do it without starting from scratch.

You cannot argue from the catechism with me, because I don't accept it as an infallible authority.

I cannot assume that I can argue only from Scripture, because Roman Catholics don't accept Sola Scriptura.

Shoot...I generally start with the definitions...if you cannot even agree on the definition of "Sola Scriptura", how are you going to support to deny it?

Ditto "total depravity".

In my own tradition, I don't include "sola catechisma" as the final sola. I will use it as a reference or illustration, but not as an authority.

You have to debate from a common understanding, else you are talking past each other...

My realization came when I was debating eternal security...I asked, "so then...it's get it by faith and keep it by works?" the answer was..."yes."