Why an argument built on definitions is hard to answer

The disagreement appears to be about a policy, and every exchange in it is about what a word covers. One side proposed a definition, the other is arguing inside it, and the second side is losing without any evidence having been produced.

What everyone sees

Definitions look like preliminaries — housekeeping to settle before the real argument starts. Conceding one feels like a courtesy rather than a concession, since it appears to commit nobody to any claim about the facts.

What is actually happening

Classical stasis theory placed definition before quality and procedure for a reason: whoever fixes the terms fixes what will count as evidence. Zarefsky described definitional argument in political rhetoric, where the contested move is the categorisation itself and is rarely defended out loud. Schiappa treats definitions as arguments about how a word should be used rather than reports of how it is. Fahnestock and Secor showed disputes that look factual resolving at the definitional stasis instead.

Why it stays hidden

The move hides because it is agreed to rather than asserted. Once a definition is accepted, objecting to it later looks like moving the goalposts, and the objection has to be phrased in the vocabulary the definition supplied. The definitional stage also passes quickly and feels procedural, so the decisive point of the argument is the part that received the least attention.