There is a debate about how to do apologetics. I certainly will not solve the debate, but I offer my observations.
Most everyone agrees: evidence is not enough to convert anyone. And there must be a work of the Spirit. What we do argue over is what kind of evidences we should use and how much time we should spend on it. But practically speaking, we are all evidencialists/rationalists at some level when it comes to actually y’all with people.
And here, I add my observation. When Jesus walked on earth, he offered evidence of his divinity: whether from Scripture, his miracles, or reason. And he give these things to all people. And here you had undeniable proof, if there ever is any, of his own divinity. But even then, people split into two camps: those who believed and those who didn’t.
Following his example, then, it doesn’t seem that there is “a right way” to do apologetics. In fact, Jesus seems to have varied his method with his audience. To the crowds, miracles and stories. To the Pharisees, Scripture. To the Sadducees and pagans, reason. Thus we must vary our approach with our audience.
But regardless as to our approach, there will be plenty who are not convinced. And, while we should approach them as often as appropriate, we should not be surprised when they reject our evidence.