Kevin DeYoung writes about ways of framing an argument that rely more on the technique than the content to carry the case:
All of us can make strong sounding arguments that, upon closer inspection, are much less than meets the eye. We employ rhetorical strategies that look impressive (and often work) but contain hidden assumptions and flimsy reasoning. Here are six common arguments (or approaches to argumentation) that can stop us in our tracks, but are actually less impressive than they seem. These arguments are not all wrong, but they must be evaluated with discernment, and they must not be accepted without corroborating evidence.
He provides six examples (expanded upon significantly in the post):
1. The Big Nasty.
2. The Third Way. That Isn’t.
3. Categorize and Conquer.
4. Preemptive Strikes.
5. Affirm Then Deny.
6. We’ve Been Wrong, So You Are Wrong.
And sums it up with an amusing application:
In conclusion, all I have to say is this post was too long so I’m taking tomorrow off. The mean-spirited blog bullies will probably call me lazy, but that’s a cross I’m willing to bear. On one level this may look like a passive aggressive argument, but on another level I knew you would say that because you are beholden to Greek thinking and a mechanical dictation theory of inspiration.
Read Less than Meets The Eye at Kevin DeYoung’s blog.
mgpcpastor's blog 
For a more detailed treatment of the whole area of argument, I recommend Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl. His stuff about the burden of proof is helpful. His website, Stand to Reason (http://www.str.org) is worth a look too.