I don't know if something like this already exists, but I'd like to propose an idea I had I call The Apologist's Dilemma. This was partially inspired by the youtube video Putting faith in its place by QualiaSoup.
All the Apologist's Dilemma really boils down to is you can't lie or cheat in a theological debate, referring to two specific lies that are almost universally found at the core of apologist arguments. These are:
A) No amount of invalid arguments will ever equal one valid argument.
B) If your best argument is not valid, then all your other inferior arguments are also thus invalid.
This should at least shorten any theological debate to just a few points. First of all, any argument can be checked for the claim of being the best argument, at least in the apologists opinion. If not, and if the apologist hasn't already successfully argued for the existence of gods, then it can be dismissed as a waste of time or a stalling tactic.
There's also one more set of clauses to the dilemma that the apologist would have to adhere to to remain honest and truthful.
a) Either the debate is over the possible existence of your specific god, and thus arguments for the existence of other gods work as arguments against the existence of your specific god, or--
b) The debate is about the possible existence of a theodicean god, and thus personal claims and any acts that could be performed by sufficiently advanced science have no bearing.