I think the opening statement with an apologist is by far the most important. You can cut of a large portion of the irrelevance they're capable of bringing by being careful how you word your argument.
I almost always choose to go with something simple, "My claim is that you have no proof or compelling argument for the existence of a personal god."
This cuts out a few things, it removes their ability to ask you for burden of proof on god not existing, it sounds extremely silly if they try to say, "You have no proof that I don't have proof." It also keeps the argument in the realms of a personal god rather than them using deism to get their foot in the door. It also doesn't allow them to obfuscate with the whole, "You're just angry at God," thing. The last thing I can think of is limiting the use of Pascal's Wager they'd need to bring the debate into an area they can use it, but since you've gained control it's difficult for them to steer.