Defining away the problem

When Person-x pushes Person-y to the logical conclusion of their proposition (in an effort to change their mind) and it is realized it is unlivable, Person-y cannot simply define the problem away by saying, "that's not what I meant by ___."

1) If a new word was chosen, the argument would still prove unlivable per its retention of the essence of the proposition.

2) If a new meaning of the same word was chosen, thus changing the essence of the proposition, I would venture to say it would probably agree with Person-x.

3) In order to remain intellectually accountable, Person-y must be willing to admit this when it happens, and cannot simply deny it based on the fact that it contradicts his initial proposition. 

4) The goal is truth, and the essence of truth is: what corresponds to reality. It is not a power play, a philosophical game, or a religious manipulation. 

5) The law of bivalence states that each proposition has one of only two truth values: it is either true or false. Thus every proposition is either true or false, based on the truth maker as being: that which corresponds to reality.

6) Truth claims are not personal attacks, and when someone takes it personally, they are revealing their priority is not to discover truth, but to get away with ____.