Fair enough, I'm not great at apologetics nor do I post often so here goes:

There is no role or position of Pope in the Bible.

The office did not exist at this time, so yes this is true.

Neither the Pope or any Catholic priest meets the biblical requirements for a pastor or elder of the church as laid out by 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9.

You're referring to celibacy of the clergy. This was not mandated at this point, of course even Peter was married. Celibacy has never been stated as a dogma, doctrine, or tenet of the faith. It's a discipline which was adopted over time. Besides, these are pastoral letters and not the words of Jesus himself. The entire bible is Divine Revelation, and you don't get to follow just the parts of scripture that fit your own beliefs.

There is zero examples of praying to ANYONE besides God in scripture. Catholics pray to Mary and saints.

mUh CatHOlIcS woRsHip MaRY. Do you talk to grandma, dead friends, etc. whom you assume to be in heaven? So why is it a problem to talk to the Mother of God, or someone who lived a saintly life? Are they not good examples of Christian living?

The Catholic Church was persecuting and executing people for translating scripture into English so the common people could read it. (Faggot gatekeeping)

Translations have never been banned, the requirement was that it needed to be approved by the bishops to ensure bad actors (Calvin, Jews) weren't changing things. The bible has always been translated back to antiquity.

Catholics will always say "MuH tRaDiTiOn!" which is the same argument that the Pharisees used and Jesus rebuked.

OK, so where do you draw the line at when tradition stops being a good thing?

(God's Word is our standard and we are instructed to test everything with scripture)

See my comments re: the pastoral letters, again you're cherry picking what fits your narrative.

I could go on and on but IMO I think the Protestant Reformation was the the faithful church went in large part. Coincidentally In large part the people that founded this great nation.

How can you call a group who's name means "protest" and broke away from the church, faithful. Yes the church was in need of reform then, and it was largely underway. Luther himself wasn't looking to break off and start a new church. It was all about GREED, the greed of the nobility that wanted to get their hands on church property. It took on a life of it's own. The persecution under Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and the Vendee all speak for itself. The entire thing was a massive transfer of wealth.

For the most part I don't doubt the good intentions of prots. They're taught 30 or 40 verses, no history, and no context. They deploy the same easily debunkable falsehoods over and over, which are misconceptions at best and lies at worst. There are a hundred other things to say here but I'm not going to convince anyone. I would just say to treat this like any other rabbit hole you see around GAW. Check out Candace's conversion story, and read City of God or Belloc. Consider that when someone leaves the church they are >90% of the time pissed off and angry; yet when someone comes TO the church it is said they are coming home and have found peace.