Believing is not the same as Knowing.
Being Convinced is not necessarily the same as coming to Agreement with the Evidence.
Arguments are not Evidence in themselves. They can be Arguments for particular Explanations of the Evidence, but don’t necessarily have to be backed by such. People make Arguments whether they have Evidence or not because they still want to Convince you to Believe what rhey do, and Convince themselves that they are Reasonable and Rational for believing what they do… EVEN when they aren’t or have no actual Evidence to back their Arguments.
Apologists are like Lawyers. It doesn’t matter whether what they are saying is True or Not, it’s their job to Convince you that it is. That’s why they take the Adversarial position of questioning your Sincerity, Morality or Intelligence in not believing what they are promoting vs the Cooperative Stance of Working Together to find what is actually True, and only Believing what we can actually Demonstate and Show to be such.
Rational and Reasonable people care what is actually True.
Apologists only care about what they can Convince you to Believe is True ™.