I have run into an argumentation tactic several times in the last few years and I finally discovered that it has an actual name. Consider the following: You and I are arguing over something which has a common usage understanding. I can’t convince you and then I insist that we are arguing over something using a technical definition different than common usage. I can prove my point using that definition. Have I won the original point?

I don’t know about you, but I often see exchanges of the following type (replace “murder” with any of a thousand different behaviors which are unkind to other people): Team Humanity member: “Murder is wrong. Gang A and Gang B murder people. Stop it.” Gang A member: “That is false equivalence. Gang B murders more people and more enthusiastically than we do.” Team Humanity member: “Stop murdering people.