Your first agenda is, "To *learn* the truth: to gain a correct
_understanding_ of origins issues, so far as one can, and to integrate this
understanding into one's
world view."
This agenda seems fits that of a "watcher" of the C-E debate. This agenda is
quite different from the second and third ones.
Your second agenda is, "To *persuade* others, through civil discussion and
sound arguments. Some persuaders want to work out an effective apologetics
linked to science."
This is the agenda of those who are engaged in the C-E debate. This agenda
seems perfectly legitimate to me.
The third agenda is the only one everyone should reject. But it seems to be
hard to avoid slipping into it. There is a fine line between using
legitimate rhetorical devices to win over the reader or audience, and using
slightly ad hominem arguments, for instance, to do the same. And your third
agenda is not limited to the C-E debate. Secular paleoanthropologist are at
each other's throats as a regular practice.
Bob