Actually, no. I just made that up.
But there are significant differences among these three.
A debater can take any side of an issue (much like a lawyer), and they don't care about the facts. They'll argue anything.
An apologist can take only one side of an issue, and doesn't care about the facts either. This is particularly true of religious apologists. They'll argue using anything that favors their belief, and they have been known to make things up from whole cloth.
A scientist is supposed to follow the facts to wherever they lead, and most do just that.
Scientists are trained to ignore magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, naturalism, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, divination, "miracles," the unguessable verdict of history, hoodoo, voodoo, and all that other weird stuff.
Would that everyone were similarly trained, eh?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.