In a discussion on Prince Andrew you don't need to justify Prince Andrew's alleged pedophilia by pointing out the famous pedophiles and criminal child abusers you think exist in America and the 'hyprocracy' of criticizing Prince Andrew.
OK. Firstly, I don't think there's any debate to be had about whether paedophilia is a bad thing.
But there are still 2 separate points here. Pointing out inconsistency - the way a person criticises Person A for doing something when they have previously not criticised Person B, or even defended them, for doing the same thing - is completely separate from whether you agree with their criticism of Person A.
I can agree with someone's criticisms of Prince Andrew and also question why they didn't criticise, or even defended, Gary Glitter for the same thing (you might need to Google him, not sure if he ever made it in the US). Doing that is NOT a justification of the alleged actions of Prince Andrew.
Or I can disagree with someone's criticisms of Biden and also question why they didn't criticise or even defended Trump for the same thing.
I can say "yes, I agree with you but why were you fine with this other person doing the same thing?"
Or can say "I disagree with you and why were you fine with this other person doing the same thing?"
See? These are two independent points. The latter point does not imply agreement with the first.