One common ad hominem launched against Christian apologists is that they don't really believe what they're preaching, they're just in it for the money. Personally, I don't get a penny for this, so I've only encountered one idiot in my entire career who has told me I "lie for a living". But obviously, other apologists do get paid. They sell books and DVDs and stuff like that. And so it's only natural for atheists lacking arguments to say things like "Oh, now I see why Ken Ham debated Bill Nye. $$$$".
Now, without getting into the morality of capitalising on apologetics, let's ask a few simple questions. Should a police officer work for free? What about a doctor? Or a teacher? Or a scientist? The obvious answer is no. Of course we should pay people in these professions. And yet, even if we could say that a person's sole motive for doing any of those jobs was the money it pays, this would not say a thing about the legitimacy of the role. If it did, every truth claim, regardless of legitimacy, would be cheapened by the fact that those who have knowledge are quite happy to sell it. Even math books aren't exactly cheap. Is 2 + 2 = 7 a legitimate equation because my mother spent £2.99 on a book of math problems for 8 year old Brian to solve?
Regardless of how much an apologist makes, if anything, the focus in any discussion should be on the quality of the arguments themselves. If your only refutation of the argument is "yeah, but you got paid to say it", you've probably got the wrong worldview. Christians don't need to point out how much it costs to join Richard Dawkins' "Reason Circle" in order to point out that his arguments are riddled with fallacies, contradictions and false information. His argument from geography commits the genetic fallacy. His claim that no designer worth his salt would "own up to the human eye" doesn't hold water when you show that octopi, which he suggests have better eyes, are actually colorblind, and of course live under water. He has a double standard when it comes to indoctrination: Teaching kids Genesis is "child abuse", but you can funnel Evolution into them until they're 18. At no point in addressing those three arguments did I make any reference to money. Why, then, is it so common for atheists to accuse Christian apologists of being in it for the money?
The answer to this is that there is one thing more motivating than money: Sin. Christianity is obviously a very strong religion. But repentance is not easy. As a sinful species, we will do anything to avoid accountability to our Creator, up to and including denying His existence. But my friends, it only works for a short time. See, one day, God will demand an account for everything we've ever thought, said, and done, and the penalty for every imperfection in those thoughts, words, and deeds must be paid.
But that's where Jesus comes in. Rather than profiting from religion, Jesus left the Kingdom of Heaven behind in order to live the life of a carpenter. Though equal with God, He didn't abuse this. Instead, He served others, eventually giving up His life on a cross. There, He suffered the penalty for sin. After that, He rose. And everyone who believes this will profit from it, gaining an inheritance of eternal life in the Kingdom of God. That's better than any amount of "$$$$$".