Talk about Jesus resurrection. I often see nearly no skeptics who can tackle it effectively.
I'm assuming you wanted an entry under the primary "frequently asked questions" list. Honestly, it's not something that comes up that often. There's other topics that would make that list before the resurrection aspect of Christianity, such as Noah's Ark.
Beyond that... what is there to tackle, exactly?
It's a component of a story in a book. "Beowulf" makes assertions in its story as well. That alone is insufficient to demonstrate that any of it happened.
It's a minor part (in terms of word count) of the Biblical story. This is the same book that has,
- Talking snakes (Genesis 3)
- Talking trees (Judges 9)
- A talking donkey (Numbers 22)
I have no more good reason to believe that a Jesus guy resurrected and ascended, than I do that there was a talking snake.
If you want a frequently-asked-question, it'd be about whether there was a historical Jesus. Whether a "Jesus guy" existed is separate from anything else asserted about him, such as walking on water or curing blind people with a touch.
There's basically nothing interesting to address here. The assertion has yet to meet its burden of proof. Whether you think that's "effective" or not, is not as relevant as to whether the claim has made its case using actual effective epistemic methodology, which can independently be shown to work, as a process.
It'd be better if we moved from a single person's subjective requirements for being convinced, to something more objective.
I'd be more likely to talk about how a book claiming that 500 unnamed faceless people - who we have no independent writings from, or who we can cross-examine - saw a thing... is a woefully inadequate way of gaining true knowledge about the world.
That would at least be a more general discussion about how to approach investigating things, instead of spending time on yet another unsupported unevidenced unsubstantiated claim from a multi-translated book that's transcribed multi-generational oral tradition.