I’m pretty sure it would have come out with many more universalist verses. I remember being shocked when I first started studying universal reconciliation several years back at how very many of them there were. We just look over them until (I guess) we’re ready to see them. But I don’t think there are any shortcuts to presenting a coherent argument for any of the points. You’re somewhat ahead of the game if you start out with one of the more prevalent arguments (that is, either for Arm or Calv) because many of the people you talk to will already be your allies. But if you want to argue face to face for universal reconciliation, you’ll have to know your stuff.
I decided right away that I was going to become as much of an expert as I was capable of, because I knew I’d have lots of questions and disagreements. We were doing house church at the time. Our group has drifted apart since (because of so many new babies and busy mommies/daddies – nothing to do with my “heretical” beliefs) 
Besides it became something of an obsession for me. What an amazing and fascinating thought! God could really be THAT good?! Was it true? I had to be fully convinced if I was going to share it with anyone, and I had to be able to defend it.
Questions I get most often are, “Doesn’t it take the pressure off for evangelism? I mean why bother if they’re all going to be saved anyhow?” “Why live for Jesus now if you’re going to heaven anyway?” At these I just shake my head. Are these people even Christ followers? Seriously? I needed to find out what the gospel really was, because suddenly it actually WASN’T about getting to heaven when you die. It’s about being in love with Jesus and with other people. It’s about love and learning to be like Him and helping other people and loving one another as He has loved us. The atonement isn’t about Father sacrificing His Son to Himself to appease His wrath. It’s about Jesus putting the flesh to death along with the condemnation of the law that was against us. As the second Adam, He put the entire race to death in Himself so that we could die to the bonds of this world and our slavery to sin, and be raised to new life in Him, free to live in righteousness. Another thing that concerns people is the fear that if you believe in UR, you’re a heretic and going to hell. I remind them that this is not what sends people to hell according to prevalent theology. You go to hell for rejecting Jesus, not for having mistakes in your theology. Otherwise everyone would be going to hell. Then they ask about the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Sheep and the Goats, the Wheat and the Tares, the Ten Bridesmaids and probably some others I’m not thinking of just now. So I did a study of the parables of Jesus and discovered what an incredible genius Jesus actually was (and is, of course). For that I highly recommend Kenneth E Bailey’s “Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes” and “Poet & Peasant” (with “Through Peasant Eyes”). Also “Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus” (Lois Tverberg). I did a study on the atonement because suddenly Penal Substitution didn’t work any more (for me) and I discovered to my surprise and delight that there are many atonement theories, and that most of them are much better supported in scripture than Penal Sub.
I’m afraid there aren’t any shortcuts. And you probably shouldn’t expect to persuade your friends. Unless they’re already on the edge, that’s not likely to happen – but you can plant some seeds. You need to know your subject well so that you can answer questions in a way that will particularly relate to the person asking them. It’s also important to have a good over-all understanding and familiarity with scripture as a whole.
I did a year-long study of Romans to see what Paul had to say about these and many other things. I read TEU (Gregory MacDonald aka Robin Parry) – a couple of times, Inescapable Love of God (Thomas Talbott) – maybe three times, and Hope Beyond Hell (Gerry Beaucheman) several times as well. Other good books to read are The One Purpose of God (Jan Bonda), All Shall Be Well (edited by Gregory MacDonald), a wide selection of George MacDonald’s books, and of course the Bible. “The Shack” is a good one too, and a lot of people like Rob Bell’s “Love Wins,” though I didn’t find it all that helpful for me. That’s not an exhaustive list, but unless you’ve already read most of them, it should keep you busy. I also read a bunch of books on why hell in the traditional sense is real, because I wanted to know the worst arguments I might come up against. I thought maybe they’d convince me to rescind my new beliefs, but none of them turned out to be very good. In other places I ran across a few questions I found difficult, but I asked them here and got very good answers to all of them.
People will have their preconceived notions as to what Christian universalists believe. Most of them think we’re all pluralists. Unitarians are pluralists, and some non-Unitarians are pluralists as well. But I know a significant number of evangelicals who are so close to pluralism it’s hard to figure out what the difference is. Most of them are missionaries, and as they’re all either Annis or ECTs, that’s understandable. They have to have an answer for themselves as to how all this vast group of people with so little opportunity to know our Jesus could be justifiably damned – especially when they’ve met so many good, decent people who’ve never come to know the Lord. Myself, I’m not a pluralist. I believe that everyone eventually comes to the Father through the Son by the influence of the Holy Spirit. There is no other way – but He eventually finds them all, no matter how far off track they’ve wandered. That’s what I tell people who ask me if I believe “all roads lead to heaven.” I use a line (more or less) penned by the author of The Shack – “Most roads lead nowhere, but the Good Shepherd will eventually find them no matter which road they’ve wandered down.” He has Jesus saying this in first person, but I don’t do that.
Blessings, Cindy
) It is quite difficult to advance the conversation beyond this point, as most Cals and Arms are convinced that, even if the universalist can show that the other views stand on exegetically shaky ground or at least their appeals to scripture or no better than those of the universalist or annihilationist, since their’s is the “tougher” view, it must therefore be correct. Universalism is often thought to be for “itching ears”, and therefore a false Gospel.
) I don’t know how usefully fair (or fairly useful) pointing there would be: he ends up rather straw-manning himself.
)