He missed a thing with Trent Horn

Most Believers Don't Know THIS and it's SHOCKING
Ruslan KD, 1 Feb. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyVtPrmPmpU

3:36 St. John's Gospel was written in around AD 100. Confer the Apocalypse on Patmos, written around AD 90 (or in the year itself) ...

He had basically been told Our Lord wasn't coming back in his immediate listeners' lifetime. So, he wrote the Gospel.

23:08 Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Tradition do not mean every dogma has to be identified as a dogma from Apostolic times, or even mentioned as a doctrine in what's left us from Apostolic times.

Apostolic Succession means, you become bishop by being ordained by bishops whose episcopal office goes back to the Apostles.
Apostolic Tradition means, there are things that the Apostles didn't write down in the Bible, which are nevertheless binding, because they handed them down otherwise. Or, in other words, you don't invent doctrines. The one who makes a "novum" is a heretic.

You have statements close enough to papal infallibility, and directly involving papal supremacy going back very far, like to Clement of Rome for the latter.

23:15 The papacy certainly was a thing prior to 1869 ~ 70 (the video you cite got the year wrong).

24:35 There is more like an idea that Apostolic Succession is absent from all and any Protestant "Church" ...

Some people on both sides are ignorant of Orthodox and Orientals, and assume this means (whether they agree with it or not) that it exists only in the Catholic Church. This is wrong.

Also - a Catholic wouldn't need to be told this - Apostolic Succession and Papacy are two distinct things ... both constitutive of the Church, but not both the same.

24:56 Peter became two things in the weeks from Resurrection to Ascension.

Bishop - like the rest of the twelve.
Pope - unlike the rest. Over the rest.

When St. Peter left Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem who ensued, St. James the Brother of God, was not Pope, since he was not Peter and Peter had not died.
When St. Peter left Antioch, the bishop of Antioch who ensued, St. Evodius, was not Pope, since he was not Peter and Peter had not died.
When St. Rome left Rome ... he didn't leave Rome. He died there, so St. Linus actually was the next Pope.

27:14 While I don't accept the "Second Vatican Council" and do not accept the man convoking it was Pope, the guy you listen to is misrepresenting it.

The "very special circumstances" are mentioned in the Vatican Council (1869-70). The texts of "Vatican II" do not change them.

The intepretations of them change so as to be more restrictive, but this is not due to a text in the "council" but due to a swing in the theological mood, independently of conciliar or pseudo-conciliar texts.

27:42 "that Protestants are still technically Christian"

That is actually close to statements in the "council" - it's not "departed" but "separated brethren" by the way.