The Kind of Apologist I do Not Want to Be

This* sums it up:

"How you know the Christian is going to lose: he starts with Pascal's Wager, doesn't want to defend Christianity, misunderstands evolution, and dodges every question he can."

• Pascal's wager can have its uses in evangelising, but it is not an argument you use in debates about truth. It's a long term appeal.
• Christianity is attacked, so the apologist is there to defend it. If he doesn't want to, he's not an apologist (note, the charge may be erroneous, it could be a case of wanting to defend general Theistic metaphysics first, before going specifically onto that question which God is the true one).
• I am attacking evolution, but hopefully not by misunderstanding it.
• I dodge reanswering questions already answered and I dodge atheistic versions of what they call Gish gallop, if I can, but as few other questions as possible. As few serious questions as possible, and my worst dodge would normally be "please wait".

* Sutra Stevens, three months ago. Here. As the debate topic was existence of God, the not wanting to defend specifically Christianity was in fact appropriate.