One of the things I least miss about college is the constant debates I would have with the anti-Christian students who surrounded me. One particular example springs to mind. A young man, an LGBT activist, was clearly not happy with my status as an ex-gay.
A few days before this discussion, I had spoken to another member of the class on this very issue. I had attempted to explain my testimony to him, and he passed this on to the other guy, triggering the whole argument. Initially, the activist was flabbergasted. "So, you used to be gay, but then you read the Bible and were cured?" That is not the case at all. I had never claimed to have been cured just by reading the Bible, and it is a highly simplistic summary of my testimony to say otherwise. What's more is that it is incomplete. The person from whom he had received this information had cut me off before I could finish explaining it.
So I pointed this out. No, it is not the simple. As a matter of fact, when I first converted, I tried to use the Bible to defend my homosexuality, and it was not until atheists tried to force me to hate the Bible because of its strong stance against homosexuality that I even attempted to change (how ironic that atheists convinced me to become a more consistent Christian).
Now, it is perfectly reasonable to ask any serious question once. But this individual did it again, this time somewhat behind my back (I was still in the room, but was no longer part of the discussion, as I had attempted to continue my work). I rejoined the conversation, again correcting the error, and continued my work. A member of staff sat down with me to discuss the aggressive behavior of the other students. That was when the activist again shouted out the extremely simplistic version of my testimony. "So, he's saying he used to be gay, but then he read the Bible and was cured!"
I'll confess that my response was not as Christian as it should have been. Being ganged up on by no less than 5 students (along with the rest of the class laughing along) was not the plan I'd had for that day, so I did raise my voice and insult his intelligence for having been told three times that he had misrepresented my testimony, and it was no longer within the realms of intelligent discussion, but rather was now a case of harassment.
In my anger, I had dropped the ball. The Christian response would have been to just ignore it and continue my work. Nevertheless, my point was factually correct. In Proverbs 18:2, depending on the translation, we read something along the lines of "a fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but in expressing his own opinions." This does not negate asking questions. Even a stupid question can increase our understanding if a good answer is given and taken on board. Even a clarifying follow up is somewhat intelligent. But even the most legitimate of questions, asked without the intention of understanding the answer, are wasted.
It has been a considerable amount of time since I was in college, but this sort of behavior is certainly not confined to British colleges. All throughout my career as an apologist, I have encountered this kind of individual. They are the bane of an apologist's life. To my non-Christian readers, I say this: Don't be "that guy". Seek truth, and when it is received, take it the first time. To my Christian readers, my advice is to learn from my mistakes. Not everyone who asks a question wants an answer. The Bible says when someone rejects the message you bring, the appropriate response is to leave the house or town, kicking the dust from your feet as you leave. Leaving someone to their own destruction is tragic, but ultimately is Biblical. You are not obligated to answer every question, or even engage every opponent.