You assert that people simply define the term in a way that allows them to claim it exists, but then you simply define it in a way that allows you claim it does

You assert that people simply define the term in a way that allows them to claim it exists, but then you simply define it in a way that allows you claim it doesn't exist. Wouldn't the obvious conclusion be that there is a semantic disagreement, rather than "no, you're wrong and I'm right"? Your post seems very dissonant to me.