If they are serious, then they are making the equivocation fallacy - arguing by using a word in two different ways and hoping nobody notices the mistake. But i

If they are serious, then they are making the equivocation fallacy - arguing by using a word in two different ways and hoping nobody notices the mistake. But it's likely they are doing this as a pun, where readers are supposed to notice the equivocation, and find it funny or annoying. For example we can imagine a lazy husband saying "they're called leaves, so that is why I'm going to leave them for tomorrow!" This is not a serious attempt to equivocate the two meanings of "leave" - it communicates non willingness while also causing laughter or annoyance. An obvious equivocation is not usually an effective argument. But making it a pun can win points with a good humored audience, because they find it funny. Funny arguments can influence opinions even though we know they are nonsense. TLDR; when people mix word meanings secretly to confuse people and win points, it's equivocation, and that's a morally bad argument and is usually unacceptable. But when people mix meanings blatantly to win points by being funny, it's a pun, and that may be acceptable in non-serious conversations.