A nicely done article by Robby, given that arguing definitions is too often a thankless waste of time. Some selections from [1] ...

> Arguing about definitions is a garden path; people wouldn’t go down the path if they saw at the outset where it led.

See [1] for some tips on moving past the fruitless arguments:

> Personally I’d say that if the issue arises, both sides should switch to describing the event in unambiguous lower-level constituents ...

> ... Or each side could designate a new word, like ‘alberzle’ and ‘bargulum,’

> ... and then both sides could use the new words consistently. That way neither side has to back down or lose face, but they can still communicate.

> And of course you should try to keep track, at all times, of some testable proposition that the argument is actually about.

> Does that sound right to you?

[1]: https://www.readthesequences.com/Disputing-Definitions