No, it doesn’t and it’s not. It is possible to reason about morals without subtlety deceitful language games.
I’d also like to point out that your comment likely uses the very same tactics that GP is complaining about.
Clearly when saying “manipulation”, GP meant that they are upset with language designed to foster a foregone conclusion.
So you either:
1. Think that is acceptable, which it’s not.
2. Are changing the definition of “manipulation” to mean something more like “use”, which was clearly not intended here.
Neither option is conducive to honest moral discourse. If you want to reinforce your current beliefs, go ahead and continue the same way. If you are interested in an honest debate, give GP the best interpretation possible, and see if you position still holds up.
As a final point of why these language games are not conducive to honest debate, you did not address the latter points that GP brought up.
What does this mean? This applies to every single moral judgement, and that is perfectly fine and normal. That is what morals are.