1. Please be consistent with the method. If you start by acknowledging the accepted playing field, do not make an argument from another data which is not acknowledged in the beginning. For example, if let say the commonly accepted data for arguing about resurrection is the letters of Paul, and to some extent, the gospel of Mark, do not make an argument later from the gospel of John. It doesn’t work that way. It is a sign of intellectual dishonesty to say “I will follow your rules” in the beginning so that we can gain a hearing but only to break them afterwards.
2. Speaking about rules, it is usually naturalistic in outlook if you follow the secular academic rules (of course, duh). I understand that the task of apologetics is an outreach in nature. You are willing to acknowledge the rules although it is against your belief. Nevertheless, if you do this, you will end up eventually in a god of the gap argument, since you will say that the naturalistic explanation does not do full justice to the data (let say, again, about the resurrection), and hence we need a supra-naturalistic explanation. And I have written elsewhere that god is not a supra-naturalistic explanation. To put it simply, what would happen if some day we find a naturalistic explanation of the resurrection? The god of the gap who raised Jesus is not needed anymore, right?
3. The form of the “data” determines the method of looking at it. The resurrection of Jesus is not a “neutral” fact. It presents itself as a self-involving data. It claims your entire self and proclaims Jesus is Lord. Again, I understand the motivation of doing apologetics. But I guess what’s more appropriate is to let ourselves to be determined by the “data” rather than otherwise. The How must follow the What or the Who.