Some Logical Fallacies Commonly Made By Roman Catholic Apologists in Defending Their Faith

I have noticed that Roman Catholic apologists are mostly very unprofessional and two, debating with them is a waste of time.  When I listened to an Independent Baptist vs. Roman Catholic debate, neither side really made sense.  Both of them were attacking each other with illogical arguments.  This of course should at least help Independent Baptist apologists to avoid making the same mistakes since I have observed them sadly wasting their time debating with Roman Catholic apologists:

Here are some logical fallacies I have observed that Roman Catholic apologists make a lot and I'm not only tackling on the Catholic Faith Defenders:

Ad Hominem.  More often than not, I have observed that Roman Catholic apologists attack the person instead of the argument.  Like in the past, I remembered how a Catholic faith defender said, "Well you are not a priest or a doctor of the church to talk about the Scripture."

Appeal to Force.  While not all Roman Catholic apologists do this but a lot of them say something like, "Unless you accept our doctrine that Mary is sinless, she's the mother of God and that she is a co-Mediator, you hate her."  I have observed that argument more often than not in the "Splendor of the Church" blog by Abe Arganiosa. 

Appeal to Popularity.  More often than not, I hear Roman Catholic apologists say, "We are the ones who are right because of our numbers." showing the statistics of how many people have converted to Roman Catholicism.  In short, they are somewhat implying that they are right because they are plenty rather than using Scripture as the basis that they are right.

Appeal to Tradition.  Knowing that the Roman Catholic religion is appealing to tradition, Catholic faith defenders use the argument of "For centuries..." mixed with a couple of truths and lies to confuse the person.  To appeal to tradition, they appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6 to justify their use of tradition that goes against the Bible.

Category Mistake.  After reading Bro. Gerry Soliman's blog, I read the argument done against Precious Lara Lagman who showed the errors of focusing on Pope Francis.  The blog "Splendor of the Church" called her a hypocrite for doing so.  The category mistake here is that Pope Francis was paraded for RELIGIOUS purposes, Lara Lagman was paraded like Mordecai on the finest horse. 

False Dilemma.  More often than not, I have observed how Roman Catholic apologists always use arguments like, "Show me in the Bible anywhere that does not prove that Peter was the first Pope or that praying to Mary is idolatry or that Jesus established the Baptist Church." to justify their origins.  They do not offer other alternatives as a dirty trick to win the argument.

Irrelevance.  In their "appeal to tradition" fallacy, they also say stuff like, "Our traditions are equal to Scripture because they were practiced for centuries." is what I always hear a lot.  Just becasue something has been practiced for centuries, does not make it equal to Scripture.

Poisoning the Well.  I have noticed this tactic is very common especially among the Jesuit-trained Roman Catholic apologists since they are attending a Jesuit-ran parish.  They are quick to nitpick on the faults of others (as if they have no faults).  In my case, a Jesuit-trained apologist would frequently use the past incident I shouted at his face to discredit me.

Special Pleading.  This is the bad case of double standard.  Bro. Gerry also offered this example that the Pope can be in error but when he declares something from his seat, he is never wrong.  Or another is that the Roman Catholic apologists nitpick on even the slightest mistakes of Baptist Christians and Protestant Christians but when the Pope has a different view, they claim to be always united.

To be honest, arguing with Roman Catholic apologists just goes nowhere.  Instead, the focus should be soulwinning, not arguing with them.  While the Gospel should offend but it should only offend by its truth, not by purposely doing offensive actions.