It seems disingenuous, or at least antisocial, to insist that you are correct about a broad and unqualified statement you made while also declaring that you meant something narrower all along.
It's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.
It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)
I never ascribe malice to anyone who makes an honest mistake and doesn’t continue to double down when corrected, insisting they’re right or that they meant something else and everyone should have understood them somehow. There are lots of smart people here from all backgrounds and it’s good to defer to others who are better informed about a subject (and I’m no exception).
I agree with this, I'm thinking more along the line of debate mistake. I make them, I always invite corrections and I think the willingness to speak on terms of your debate opponent smooths the debate process. Sometimes it does get a bit impractical, heh debating libertarians often involves learning whole new versions of english lol
Still I think you will be more successful if you put forward your caveat on definitions ahead of time, nothing is to be gained during a debate by preemptively declaring your victory, so if I were to suggest improvements to rhetoric, I'd examine my own use of "the fact is that" type things and make sure that what I describe during these uses are indeed facts agreed upon by the debate participants.
Like if I were a libertarian, instead of declaring taxation is theft, I would offer a "wouldn't you agree" and this way we debate participants share a goal of honing in to the fundamental disagreement at stake and I can tell you in my experiences it often comes down to a lack of shared values instead of facts in dispute.
