waiver of a consolidated defense as contemplated in Rules 12(g) and (h) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.” This argument is not well developed and not supported by citations to authority. We do not consider arguments without convincing argument or citations to authority. Seth v. St. Edward Mercy Med. Ctr., 375 Ark. 413, 420, 291 S.W.3d 179, 185 (2009). Moreover, appellees have not cited one case where a defendant’s general request for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) was sufficient to preserve specific 12(b) defenses. On the contrary, Arkansas case law supports the position that the Rule 12(b) defenses require specificity when pleading. For instance, where the defendant specifically pled insufficient process or service of process in the r 176, 966 S.W.2d 906, 908 (1998) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, the only 12(b) defense
holding that the defense of insufficient process was waived because it was not raised by the defendant in its answer but later in its response to the plaintiffs request for default judgment holding that the defendants waived their affirmative defense of unenforceability by failing to raise the defense in response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted holding defense of statute of limitations not waived when asserted in a motion for summary judgment rather than in the answer holding that defendant did not waive its statute of limitations defense by failing to cite the specific statute in its answer holding that a defendant waives the defense of insufficient service of process despite asserting the defense by answer by affirmatively invoking the jurisdiction of the district court to obtain partial summary judgment without earlier or simultaneously moving to dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process