For example, Kauffman cites Scott Hahn saying that papal infallibility has been exercised only twice, whereas Tim Staples cites four examples and suggests that there are more. Maybe James White should have asked Tim Staples which version of papal infallibility they were debating. Perhaps Scott Hahn and Tim Staples could have debated the issue, then the one voted the winner by the audience could have gone on to debate James White. But even that would still leave us with the question of what the official stance of the Catholic Church is on the issue. Of course, such disagreements don't necessarily refute Roman Catholicism.
People are fallible.
They disagree about a lot of things. But since Catholic apologists so often argue that disagreements among evangelicals invalidate evangelicalism, Catholics ought to be consistent with their own argument. And this leads me to the first of two topics I want to address, aside from papal infallibility. Near the beginning of the debate, Tim Staples argued that papal infallibility is a means of avoiding reliance upon personal interpretation. Later in the debate, Staples made the same sort of argument again.