Some of the excuses offered for the church's neglect of apologetics go something like this. People aren't interested in apologetics. They can't handle it. They wouldn't understand the arguments. It's not practical. It doesn't have much relevance to their lives. They're too busy for that sort of thing. And so on.
The same could be said about anti-Christian apologetics. People are too uninterested in it, too busy with other things, etc. That doesn't stop opponents of Christianity from putting anti-Christian arguments in classrooms, airing television programs supporting naturalistic evolution, running magazine articles against Christianity during the Easter and Christmas seasons, etc. The people influenced by such things don't have to have a lot of interest in those subjects, know much about how to sort through the arguments, etc. in order to be influenced.
As in politics and other areas of life, people often form their views on apologetic issues based on a small amount of information. If a source seems to be well informed, confident, etc., people will often trust that source even if they don't know much about the issues involved. And if people have questions on a topic, they'll tend to go to sources who have given some indication of interest in and knowledge about those topics. Even if people aren't interested in a topic now, what type of source do you think they'll go to if they gain an interest in the topic later? Will they go to sources who seem to have had little or no interest in the subject? What do you think will tend to happen if the church keeps neglecting apologetic issues while anti-Christian apologetics are widespread and prominent in the culture? Even if we grant the assumption that people are unconcerned about apologetics, unable to handle it, etc. (and I don't actually grant it), there would still be good reason for the church to keep apologetics widespread and prominent.