Are "apologetic" sections in the resurrection stories suspicious?

Here I'm challenging the claim that if some section of a Gospel resurrection story is of apologetic value, that makes it suspect as plausibly being an apologetic addition (invented). I argue that that rules out the most reasonable, natural, expected kind of evidence that the early church would have had if indeed Jesus did rise from the dead physically. The fact that critical scholars tend to assume in a circular way that all strongly evidential sections of the Gospel narratives are apologetic additions should indicate the hopelessness of basing a strong argument for Jesus' physical resurrection only on what is granted by nearly all scholars across the critical spectrum. Here is my series on Dr. Habermas's misunderstandings of C. H. Dodd. https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2024/05/gary-habermass-misunderstandings-of-c-h.html Here is my interesting conversation with Matthew Adelstein that got me thinking more about this term "apologetic." https://www.youtube.com/live/LCWViV-8cPw?t=713s