Phil is a prime example of the rationalisation hamster. It's more of a red pill term, generally aimed towards women, but being as effeminate as he is, it's not surprising Phil does it.
This is why it's so 'hard' to pin Phil down on something, despite how much evidence the Farms have on him. The more evidence you provide, the better, because what Phil will do is rationalise, pick out the weakest link in the accusation/claim, and lazily debunk that. He doesn't need to address the whole, just the part he can easily prove is wrong.
"You went to the cafe to meet with Mark, because you're cheating on him with me."
"No, you're wrong. You can do a polygraph, and I'd pass." (On it's face, this is true - she's not arguing she didn't cheat, just that you're wrong, therefore, invalidating your claims. Sure, she is fucking Mark, but she didn't go to the cafe to -meet- him. She met her friend Jane, before going to Mark's to get her back blown out. DEBUNKED!)
"You spent 40k on WWE Champions using your credit cards."
"Hahahaha, what a dumb nudnik. I didn't pay for WWE Champions on my credit card, how stupid are you?" (Also true - he did pay 40k on WWE Champions, but he actually used Paypal with his bank account, then paid off his balance using his credit card. DEBUNKED!)