Playing the word salad game sets you up to lose. The people who've bought into the postmodern sliding definitions won't accept your definitions because you're not their tribe.
The best thing to do is just call out their bullshit as meaningless and move on, but if you really want to debate them make them define their terms first. They usually can't or if they do will contradict their definition at some point because they have no objectivity in the first place. Substituting your own definitions will just get you in a pissing match about what the definition of is is.
I don't bother with debating a "true believer." They are a lost cause and a waste of time and oxygen. I will call them on phony statistics or sagecraft studies, especially if they have been debunked time and time again. My goal isn't to change their mind or even hope they will take a second look at the bilge they are spewing. I'm after the lurkers at the edge of the conversation, the ones who haven't swallowed the hook yet. Politely pointing out the errors in a study or a logical flaw or inconsistency in their views may plant some seeds in the undecided. If changing up the terminology starts some gears turning in their heads, I'll take that as a win.