A fallacy?

Is the following a fallacy? Present a philosophical argument. Raise a number of non-fatal objections to it, without considering possible rebuttals, and conclude that the argument is untenable. If this line of reasoning is fallacious, most papers aiming to refute a philosophical arguments are fallacious. Only a paper that concludes that an argument is untenable while unfolding and assessing the entire dialectics of responses and rebuttals would escape from this fallacy. But the latter is surely not feasible. Therefore papers on arguments should be limited to unfolding new parts of the already disclosed dialectical topology of that argument.