Indeed, I do not "dunk apologetics shots." That said, I partially disagree: I believe we should keep track of our efficacy, and not pursue lines of argument which have in our experience proven to be inefficacious.
For example, cuit evangelists will frequently challenge one to provide sources or citations, which of course one has, but it is best where possible to defer such requests, because these requests are usually not made in good faith; whatever material you provide will be distorted and misused or misquoted. A better approach is to, where possible, set some objective, some show of good faith from the cult evangelist, before providing the information. One has to be careful at the same time not to be entirely too blasé about tactically withholding such information because this simply colours one as a disagreeable person and is not endearing.
People who are cult evangelists are not per se dishonest, but they have acquired certain toxic mental constructs that impair their ability to correctly process information. As a result one has to use a different approach with them compared to what one uses with the undecided.
Now, you might ask, how does one tell a cult evangelist from an undecided inquirer? I would answer that this becomes evident after a certain amount of interaction; one can usually deduce when questions are not being asked in good faith.