A point made by a non-materialist can be dismissed by "Argument from Previous Refutation" - that point has already been dealt with. The fact that the argument against the point was incorrect, or ill-founded, is irrelevant - it is enough simply to point back to where the argument was made.
There is the "Argument Against Religion in Science" - as exemplified by the objection to "Privileged Planet" being shown at the Smithsonian. "Arguing that there must be an intelligent agency is a faith position." This shows ignorance of the fact that arguing that there isn't an intelligent agency is also a faith position - Carl Sagan's films were just as "religious" as "Privileged Planet", and yet there was no objection to showing them. It also shows ignorance that the basis for arguing for ID is actually analysis of evidence, not pre-supposition, whereas rejection (under any circumstances) of external agency is actually a pre-suppositional position, not a scientific one.
And there is the "Ignoring responses method of argumentation" - put forward arguments, ignore responses to them, and present the argument as won.