I have been listening to the "debate" between Matt Slick (founder of CARM) and Tim Staples (Apologist for Catholic Answers).
As I listen, I recognize that Matt is using a lot of the tactics he uses on CARM. He likes to keep his opponents on the defensive. But so far what is interesting is that Tim is using far more scripture to support his position than Matt is. But in the few discussions I have had with Matt at CARM, this is a common tactic, to keep you on the defensive so that he does not have to expound on his own beliefs. Thus, to those that agree with Matt, it appears that he is just wiping the floor with his opponents. When in reality it is the other way around.
Like when Matt brought up forgiveness of sins. He could not provide any scriptural support for "confessing directly to Christ" when Tim brought up the scriptures that speak of confessing to one another and forgiving "in persona Christi". So, Matt promptly changed the subject.
Also, Matt was trying to trap Tim into saying that faith alone is all that is necessary. What kind of apologetics relies on verbal traps and not the Word of God? Sometimes, I guess it is better to win at any cost, then to risk being shown a fool