The Accusations Seem Absurd

The accusations brought against Galileo by the tribunal seem absurd to me. Basically they're saying that, in Dialogue, Galileo is in the wrong for not making the arguments for the Copernican system weak enough. On page 289: "Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute." But arguments are not made more or less strong based on what the speaker wants. Their strength depends on truth and reason and logic. If these arguments exist at all, how can Galileo be at fault for how convincing they are. They are what they are. It seems absurd to blame Galileo for how convincing a logical argument is.