The primary end of apologetics is not answering questions or objections. It definitely isn't primarily about proving other people wrong. These are, at best, means to an end. At the risk of sounding cliche', I want to suggest that the primary end apologetics is loving people. The way I see it, there are two basic reasons that a person responds to questions and objections. The first is to put one's opponent in his or her place and bolster one's own position. The other is to point people (including one's opponent) to the truth. As far as I am concerned, you only do the latter out of love for the other person. Not a squishy, mushy kind of love, but genuinely caring about the other person. Unfortunately, the former is the way many Christians perceive apologetics--the practice of destroying the opposition. But that isn't even compatible with Christianity (hence the hesitance of many Christians to embrace apologetics). Why isn't it compatible? Primarily because the real opposition can ultimately only be defeated by God, and is, in a very real sense, already defeated by the finished work of Christ. No amount of intellectual prowess or tactical wit will triumph where only the blood of Christ is sufficient. Furthermore, we aren't commanded to heartlessly crush our enemies and mock their foolishness--aka Hulk Smash apologetics--but to love them (Hulk Hug?). Yes, we are also told to answer foolish speculation and vain philosophy, but to what end? To score a intellectual touchdowns and watch Jesus do a dance on the sidelines? No. We can't ignore the person and just attack abstract ideas--though that is a real temptation for those of us who discuss our faith on the internet. The end isn't proving someone wrong (though we often have to do that in order to move forward). The end isn't even answering the question or the objection. These are simply means to the end of loving people by pointing them toward the truth.
Loving others, (including our enemies) isn't just about sharing the Gospel, inviting them to church or buying them a hot meal. To be sure, it is about those things, but It also includes pointing them to the truth. In reality, human beings need the truth just as much as they need food and clothing. In fact, if your idea of sharing the Gospel is something other than pointing people to the truth, you aren't really sharing good news; you are just regurgitating slogans. Yes, sometimes it is confrontational. That is unavoidable. But think about that seriously for a second. If the people in your life do not challenge you or hold your feet to the fire from time to time, they almost certainly do not love you. You do not want to be surrounded by mindless "yes men." That is a curse, not a blessing. So yes, people's feelings will get hurt. Even so, we should not be cavalier about it. I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but I will not sacrifice the truth on the altar of political correctness.
Granted, some people are not interested in the truth at all. They have an agenda, and they are just looking to pick a fight. In these cases, I do not think we have any obligation to give them what they want. In most cases, you would be wise to use your time and energy elsewhere. Even so, such conversations are not always entirely without value. There are often other people watching or listening to the conversation who can benefit from seeing that we aren't interested in fighting but pointing to the truth.*
Here is my point. Be prepared. Diligently study. The Bible commands it. But realize that questions and objections don't arise out of nothing. They don't even come from a quantum question vacuum (though that is what the internet often seems like). They come from people. The same verse that commands us to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have," ends with the command, "But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Pt 3:15). The conjunction "but" or "yet" (ἀλλά in the Greek) seems to acknowledge the tendency to be less than charitable when engaging in defending the faith. If someone asks/accosts you with 10 questions and you can only answer 2 of them respectfully, and in a way that shows you care about the person asking, that is incalculably better than answering all 10 like an arrogant jerk with vinegar in your veins, or like an out of touch, encyclopedia with legs. Just like Indian proverb that Ravi Zacharias often quotes: "There is no point in cutting off a person's nose and then giving them a rose to smell."
*If you are not a Christian and reading this post, let me make something very clear. What I am espousing here is not a way to "trick" non-Christians and/or win arguments. That would totally contradict what I am saying. The advice is about having better (more Christ-like conversations). The reality is that if you really care about the truth, and not just winning arguments, you can probably resonate with a lot of what I have said above as well.