askchapo

Sure thing. As a low-effort example, here's Lenin responding to a liberal professor making sophistical use of the meaning of "equality," which he counters by accepting that definition of equality as a logically valid concept that no one believes and explaining that that concept is different from political equality (which both liberals and socialists believe in a version of) and that is different from economic equality (which socialists support in opposition to liberals).

As an example that I guess is also low-effort, if someone insists that the "real" definition of "socialism" is when the state makes you share your toothbrush, you can try explaining to them that there's a difference between personal and private property, but if they just insist that "you'll own nothing" is "socialism," perhaps it would be better to simply say, "Then by your definition, I am not a 'socialist,' because that is not my position. What I advocate for is 'economic democracy' [i.e. extending the democratic process to economic operations that are currently dictatorially governed by the bourgeoisie]" instead, just for the sake of being able to speak with them. This sort of thing can come up with many terms, like the definition of private property. If they demand that "private property" be defined as the US legal system (for example) currently defines it, then you can say you aren't interested in "private property" by that definition because you want to distinguish between "personal property" and, for the sake of being able to communicate, let's call it "profit-making property."

Does this make sense?