Indeed, I find the perceptions of concepts should be debated more up-front, as chasms of disagreements (often together with ad-hom) develop & can retard a debate’s progression. I’m not advocating forcing this though (“You better argue like I tell you, or else!” would be contradictory, silly, and only fuel ad-hom), as often debates end up addressing it; but I do think it should be sooner addressed rather than later.
For example, the recent debates concerning left-libertarianism; I find it utterly ridiculous some might equate left-libertarianism as favoring Statism more than “right” libertarianism, and then somewhat foo foo’ing attempts at elaborating what left-libertarianism means as excuses because a certain amount of people don’t use “x” term or “y” concept a certain way, etc.
I realize not every libertarian/an-cap/whatever does that, so I don’t want anyone to think I’m vastly generalizing everyone who disagrees me as falling under such conduct, as that is also another counter from many who might say left-libertarianism is more collectivist (again, possibly due to confusions regarding left-libertarianism being more sympathetic to Statism, which is absurd, especially when you consider Agorism).
It is rather frustrating though, especially with the obvious implications of libertarianism (politically, at least) being continually watered down in favor of new conservatism (in comparison to radical libertarianism); left-libertarianism in that context is more true to the principles of libertarianism & therefore, more radical.
I ultimaltey don’t think this post was that productive aside from slight venting & re-establishing what has been previously discussed, though.
I am beginning to think that maybe there should be a book devoted to the meta-debate on the debate of libertarianism, however. Something that would cover the various concepts, terms, stances, trends, etc; something sort of like “Apolitical Libertarianism For Dummies” or "A Guide to Libertarianism Vol 1: :insert title: ", etc.