Or said the easy way.....

If they can't dazzle you with their brilliance, they baffle you with BS.

Please, I've spent hours discussing evolution with people only to find out that we were talking about two different things. What I call evolution is man's adaptability to his environment with the origination of man being separate matter whereas others include the origination as part of evolution. Hours.

Word choice, particularly from those trying to make a specific case is a determining factor in perception. Sly and crafty manipulators often chose their words to build something out slim accepted meanings and then champion that word to make their platform for all its worth.

Man's mind is his tool for survival. Further, his mind is his conceptual apparatus. The development of his conceptual apparatus rests on valid definitions. Valid definitions depend on the axiomatic concept A is A. Thus, the degree to which a man is able to define his world without contradiction is a measure of the development of his mind.

Stolen concepts invert, erase, or otherwise distort the hierarchy of definitions. Thus, the practice of concept stealing is the willful destruction of man's tool of survival. A grave sin.

i took that lesson to heart in high school debate as did my children...

define or be defined...

Same goes for most other words with multiple definitions. Look in the OED and words like "is" and "go" which can have many pages of definitions and usage quotes of differences of meaning.

Do you actually think of the genus and differentia of the words that you converse with as you speak or think. Definitions are nearly all subconscious, if they exist at all as used by a mind. The differentia are abstract relationships which are discovered by the science of mathematics and do not necessarily need to be derived from the perception of reality other than one's own mind. Try to show where the perception of reality outside of the mind comes in for the mental objects of mathematics. Rand gave a hint about differentia being of relationships other than measurable in terms of reality out there when she answered "and how" to the question of "can love be measured?" It is hard to see how babbling together will cause a civilization to die from definition deprivation since the Earth is inhabited by many civilizations which have flourished with all kinds of nonsensical imaginary beliefs. They all have meeting houses where they gather to feel like they have some purpose and to be sure that they are not alone. Though there are dictionaries which record definitions, few have any idea what those definitions are. Most people just go by some feeling that they know what they are talking and thinking about and continue to live tranquil lives which do not endanger the civilization.

The problem with that is to destroy the entire Muslim ummah requires you also destroy Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, several Philippine islands, Albania, Bosnia, etc. The 1.2 billion faithful are kind of spread around, including in European nations and here in the U.S.

We're not quite at the point of threatening to destroy Mecca and the Dome of the Rock yet, but I feel it would be prudent to remind Saudi Arabia that if they don't leash their radical Wahhabi friends, there are folks that would try to do just that.

There are seven different interpretations of jihad, and there are Muslims who agree only to the definition that it is a war within, to become a better person. It is the extremists who externalize jihad as a war against unbelievers and apostasist Muslims who the extremists feel are failed believers. Gorka is referring to the extremist form of jihad.

Communists have long changed definitions to make what is bad, appear good.The voters failed to define Obama, instead they accepted the provided definition of a genius, lawyer, family man, who would unite us all. Reality: we got a 117IQ with no critical thinking skills, who lost his law license, who was gay, but married someone posing as "Michelle. Our first "black", POTUs, is actually half white, with father not determined, likely Muslim. We did not define this man, but allowed him to slithe into office on someone else's definition. Hillary defined herself as caring about the black and children, also only her definition of who she was. Actually, he camp conspired with the CFR for the "shared goal" of creating socially unaware citizens - dumbing down those kids.Today, we do not define, we wait for the media or huckster to define. Remember how Obama defined Islamic terrorism as "workplace violence"? Biden defined A/C as the biggest danger to our country, when his boss was our biggest danger. "Gay" used to mean happy are carefree, now it defines Rosie and Obama. Changing definitions is how bad things happen.

I wonder (actually not much) what Ayn Rand would say about the current redefinition of the term "immigration." It used to denote a legal procedure. Now it has been construed to include not only legal procedures but also wholesale invasion.

Absolutely. See Sun Tzu - also Ender Wiggin a la Orson Scott Card. The key to defeating any enemy is understanding them.

the first thing to do is turn the desert to glass. there is no collateral damage because they all put their religion first. so the need to get rid of it will get rid of the jihadists.

Sebastian Gorka says the first step in defeating jihad is to call it what it is, Islamist Extremist Terrorism. Defining the threat is the first order to defend against it, and eventually destroy it. Trump took this message to heart.

The trick to your definition is can you reduce your terms to direct perception? That was Rand's test for validity and if not where did it come from, Hume?

He or she who makes definitions does not create perceptions or we would be overwhelmed by angels and unicorns. The moral person defines words based on honest perception and identification of reality. This person can communicate effectively with anyone who also sees the real world and thinks with properly defined words. Floating concepts are words with definitions unlinked to reality and Rand hated them.

The quote is about the value of definitions to mental clarity. A word with out a definition is either unintelligible sound or random symbols. No information is contained in either. Definitions have a genus which includes the word in a larger class of concepts and a differentia which shows how it is unique from that class. Only identification of what is the class of inclusion and the perception of the differentia from that class allows information to be transmitted. Information requires definitions and they in turn depend upon clear focused perception of reality to form classes and differentia. So no society can have internal communication of information unless its definitions are derived from perception of reality. Birds who flock together see the same world together: civilizations which don't anchor their word's definitions in perception of reality die babbling together. .

He/she who makes definitions creates perception and can steer discussion. This is a sticking point I have with so many people who seem to frame conversations by selecting words that they feel mean something they don't or they've extrapolated to mean something else off a secondary definition of a word just to validate their point with some degree of commonality. Meaning has meaning for a reason.

Allowing anyone else to dictate meaning from its actuality is acquiesce.

A small issue with definitions. If my definition of a subject is different from your definition of a subject, having a rational discussion is almost an impossibility.
If my definition is totally different from yours, I tend to think you are irrational and you likewise about me. A society may make a definition about something, and all members of that society agree that it is the correct definition and that socity will function well or at least function. If others outside that society disagree they could and frequently do see the society as a little or even a lot, off base in their thinking and perhaps even dangerous.
I agree that deinitions are the key to rationality, but care must be take in the establishment of said definitions because different people hear the same words different with different denotative and connotative meanings.