I will bring up a few points here. My opponent should feel free to bring up others, as I may, as I doubt we can cover the full scope of the argument here anyway.
1 - The Church predates the Bible
Generally, Protestants who adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura will contrast Scriptural authority with the authority of a/the Church and/or the authority of Sacred Tradition. They will say "do not listen to man-made institutions, listen to the Bible." But this is both a false dichotomy and incorrectly characterizing the authorities which they criticize.
The Church's ministry began with Christ's ministry, but the Church as an institution was formally established at Pentecost, when the Apostles were given the Holy Spirit. This was only shortly after Christ had ascended into heaven. However, the books of the New Testament were not published until after this, and the Biblical canon was not actually compiled until the 4th century.
So, the Church predates the compilation of the Bible by several centuries. Even the individual books of the New Testament were authored after the Church had been established. Therefore, the idea that the Bible can be the only religious authority does not hold water. Did Christians live for four centuries without any way of knowing God? Obviously, the Deposit of Faith must include more than just Scripture. Did Christians live for four centuries without any religious authority to direct them? Obviously, Scripture cannot be the only religious authority. This segues well into my next point:
2 - The Bible was created by the Church
Put simply, God didn't directly leave us the Bible. He inspired the writers who wrote the source texts that were later compiled, by the Church and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382 and called the Bible. But God didn't directly give us the Bible. God gave us His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ gave us His Church. His Church was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The writings that became the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, et cetera) were written by Apostles and disciples of His Church for the benefit of the Church. The Old Testament's value insofar as Christianity is concerned is to serve as a record of prophecies and stories foretelling Christ and the history of Covenants leading up to Christ. Only when rampant heresies, particularly the Arian heresy, challenged the Church was the Bible compiled from numerous writings which were circulating at the time, some of which were considered for inclusion but were rejected. The Church came first, the Bible serves the Church as a library of liturgy and sacred records. It's holy, beautiful, divinely-inspired, deep in wisdom and richness, the crown jewels born out of tradition, but it wasn't given directly by God as the one and only means of knowing Him. Only Protestants think the Bible suddenly dropped out of the sky as "the big book of all things God."
So, to deny the authority of the Church is to deny the authority of the Bible. The Bible was written for the Church by members of the Church and was then compiled by a synod of the bishops of the Church. If the Church has no authority, then she had no authority to compile the Bible. If the composition of the Bible was divinely guided, so too must be the Church.
3- The Deposit of Faith
This part is relatively simple. The Deposit of Faith consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura recognizes the former but rejects the latter. So, I will submit a series of questions:
Is every statement that Jesus made while on Earth a divinely-revealed truth? I think every Christian would agree that this is, indeed, the case.
Is every single word uttered by Jesus recorded in Scripture? Of course not.
Therefore, there are divinely-revealed truths which are not recorded in Scripture. How, then, are they passed down to us? Through Sacred Tradition.
An objection to this might be that we, collectively, have simply forgotten some of Christ's teachings over time, and that Scripture is the only thing which has been passed down faithfully since the time of living memory of Christ. But consider our Lord's words in Mark 13:31: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." This actually segues nicely into my next point:
4 - Protestants do not hold to Sola Scriptura
Those who would say that the Bible is the single infallible component of the Deposit of Faith do not actually hold to this view in practice. This is evidenced by the fact that most Protestant Bibles have removed seven books from the canon, namely:
Tobit
Judith
Baruch
Sirach
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
In addition, some, such as Martin Luther, wanted to remove more, and some other books were edited.
This may seem as though I am committing an argumentum ad logicam fallacy, but this state of affairs raises some legitimate questions which are relevant to my point:
1 - If the Bible is the ultimate religious authority, on whose authority could it be edited?
2 - If the Bible is the only and infallible word of God, how could we dare to edit it at all?
It would seem here that by unilaterally abandoning the canon established by the Synod of Rome (which was based on the Septuagint), and instead changing their Old Testament to reflect the canon of the Jewish Masoretic Text, Protestants have implicitly acknowledged what I mentioned above: that the Bible exists to serve the Church, not the other way around. This does not make the Bible any less infallible, by the way, but it does make it logically impossible for the Bible to be the only authority.
Unless you get messages from God, it is a good doctrine since scripture is said to have divine inspiration and to be a word of God, where words of people arent exactly words of God.
As much as I see Catholics and orthodox Christians try to debate this, I have never heard of a protestant arguing for Sola Scriptura.
They only have a gut feeling or blind faith in Sola Scriptura , it's not a philosophical position anyone ever seriously defends.
If you watched a Benny Hinn performance and thought "yeah this is a deeply philosophical person who can reasonably defend Sola Scriptura" than you have fooled yourself.
Nobody defends that position though they believe in it, so it's pointless to do.
If you want to debate protests to than you'll need to find their actual criticisms of your religion