If we want to be rigorous, in my view, an argument for X is a reason for why we should believe X is true. Evidence are facts (i.e. bare empirical data that is agreed upon as valid by both sides) that are used as part of an argument. Thus, you cannot have evidence without an argument. Arguments are not necessarily empty, misleading rhetoric. Darwin makes a lot of good arguments for evolution in The Origin. There are arguments for the existence of dark matter. Any sequence of logical statements that states (roughly) we should believe X because of propositions Y and evidences Z is an argument.
We should distinguish between arguments and evidence. We should differentiate between the data and the conclusions people have drawn from the data. But we also shouldn’t say things like that “you don’t need arguments to show that evolution is true, only evidence.” That’s more of a rhetorical statement rather than a substantial, logical one, which is why it was confusing to me. No matter if you’re arguing for evolution or creationism or conservatism or communism, you need arguments to support your stance.
Sometimes among scientists who are working from a shared framework with similar presuppositions, we only use the term “evidence” instead of “argument”. But that is hard to apply here when talking to creationists who have very different presuppositions.
As I said, we’re trying to move onto a new path forward here. We’re trying to leave the past baggage behind.