Hindu apologists are becoming repetitive.

The more I debate with Hindu apologists, the more predictable their assertions become.

Most start with the ‘No True Scotsman’ argument, and end with the ’Not in my Philosophy’ gambit, also called the 'Courtier’s Reply' and redefining god as vaguely as possible as to elicit no discussion thereafter.

I can spot a pattern in less than a couple of minutes nowadays. It leads me to conclude that either they are getting lazier, or I am getting jaded. Or both.