I think one of the common terms for this is a &quot;motte and bailey doctrine&quot;, where people define their terms one way during an argument to make their statements super-defensible, but later redefine them to mean whatever crazy thing they actually meant. People seem to use this intentionally and unintentionally a lot.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;11&#x2F;03&#x2F;all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;11&#x2F;03&#x2F;all-in-all-another-bric...</a>